get_suite_hierarchy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'configurable depth' which hints at a behavioral trait, but doesn't disclose important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts with deep trees, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the hierarchical output looks like. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence with an emoji that reinforces the tree concept. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'hierarchical test suite tree' (resource and structure), 'with configurable depth' (key capability). No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the hierarchical output looks like, how to interpret the tree structure, performance considerations with depth, or relationships with sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how root_suite_id interacts with project_key) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get hierarchical test suite tree') and the resource ('test suite'), with the emoji reinforcing the tree concept. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'hierarchical' and 'tree', unlike other tools like 'get_all_subsuites' or 'list_test_suites' that might return flat lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving hierarchical structures with depth control, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_all_subsuites' or 'get_root_suites'. It provides some context through 'configurable depth' but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.