list_automation_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It simply states the action but does not explicitly indicate that it is a read-only operation, mention potential output format, or note any side effects or performance considerations. The minimal wording provides minimal transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero fluff. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for the core action. However, it lacks any indication of the return structure (e.g., list of names) or whether the filter is case-sensitive, which would enhance completeness for a listing operation.

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 schema covers the single optional parameter 'filter' with a description ('Filter tests by name substring'), so the description adds no further semantic value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to elaborate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'List available automation tests in the project' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('automation tests'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_automation_test and run_all_automation_tests by focusing on listing rather than executing.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention complementary tools like run_automation_test or run_automation_tests_by_category, nor does it describe scenarios where listing would be appropriate (e.g., before executing tests).

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