list_test_assemblies

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavior: it filters assemblies by path containing 'test/editor'. It is a read-only list operation with no side effects. The heuristic nature is disclosed. Lacks mention of performance or empty results, but sufficient for a simple list.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and filtering logic with no extraneous words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It adequately differentiates from siblings and covers the key behavior.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters applies.

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?

Clearly states it lists assembly definitions that look like test assemblies, with a specific filtering criterion (path contains 'test/editor'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assemblies, which likely lists all assemblies.

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 implies when to use (when you want test assemblies), but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool over alternatives such as list_assemblies or list_asmdef_references. No exclusion or context provided.

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