get_test_run_configuration_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but does not describe key behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of the returned data. The mention of 'format' parameter hints at output variations, but without details, this is insufficient for a mutation-free read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and context. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and each sentence contributes meaning. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage context but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. The high schema coverage helps, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('project' and 'format'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'project' values or the differences between 'raw' and 'formatted' outputs. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get list of Configuration Groups and their Options for a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Configuration Groups and their Options'), and scope ('for a project'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be direct alternatives for retrieving configuration groups.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions that configuration groups 'are used to configure Test Runs,' implying a context for test configuration. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, and there is no clear differentiation from other tools in the list.

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