list_test_suites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool is 'Verified Working' but fails to describe pagination behavior (implied by page/size parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no test suites exist. For a listing tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately brief with a single sentence that states the core purpose. The emoji and verification status add minimal clutter. However, the verification note ('✅ Verified Working') doesn't provide actionable information for tool selection and could be considered slightly extraneous.

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 listing tool with 8 parameters, pagination capabilities, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the listing returns, how pagination works with page_token, or what hierarchy information includes. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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 description mentions 'project' which aligns with the required 'project_key' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 - the description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema, but it also doesn't add meaningful parameter insights.

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 ('List') and resource ('test suites for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_tcm_test_suites_by_project' by being a general listing tool rather than TCM-specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_root_suites' or 'get_all_subsuites', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve test suites or related data (e.g., 'get_all_tcm_test_suites_by_project', 'get_root_suites', 'get_suite_hierarchy'), there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over those more specific options.

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