list_test_suites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that suites come with parent suite ids so a tree can be reconstructed — but says nothing about ordering, depth, missing parents, or truncation, which matters for a tree rebuild.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the structural hint is placed at the end. It is efficient but under-specified rather than genuinely concise — a few more words on the required plan_id would cost little and remove ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need describing, but the tool takes a required plan_id and an optional project with no explanation of either in description or schema. For a two-parameter lookup in a large test-planning family, that leaves an agent guessing at invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only indirectly implies plan_id ('of a test plan'). The optional nullable 'project' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its purpose and relationship to plan_id entirely unexplained.

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 fragment 'Suites of a test plan' identifies the resource and its parent scope, and 'parent suite ids to rebuild the tree' hints at the returned structure, letting an agent distinguish it from list_test_plans and get_suite_test_results. However, no verb is stated and the sentence is a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_test_plans (to discover plans) or get_suite_test_results (for the actual results). No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer the workflow from the name alone.

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