get_tcm_test_suites_by_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions pagination and Java methodology. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., structure of returned test suites).

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Every element (verb, resource, pagination note, methodology) serves a purpose. The emoji adds visual distinction without compromising clarity.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'TCM test suites' are, what the Java methodology entails, what the output contains, or how pagination works in practice. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'TCM test suites by project', specifying pagination and Java methodology. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_all_tcm_test_cases_by_project' by focusing on test suites rather than test cases, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_root_suites' or 'list_test_suites'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_root_suites', 'list_test_suites', or 'get_all_tcm_test_case_suites_by_project'. The description mentions pagination but doesn't explain when this is necessary or preferable over non-paginated options.

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