Get Test Suite

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the 'Requires project context' precondition and what each flag changes in the response (run history/pass rate; extracted variables passed to later cases).

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two earns its place by explaining both optional flags and the project-context prerequisite in a compact form.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 3 fully documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose, the behavior of both optional flags, and the key precondition. With no output schema present, more return-shape detail would be marginally helpful, but 'detailed information about a test suite including its test cases' plus the flag clauses give an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents testSuiteId, includeStats, and includeExtractionVariables, including defaults. The description re-echoes the two flags ('run history and pass rate', 'variables... pass on to later cases') but adds no format, default, or syntactic detail beyond the schema and omits testSuiteId entirely. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a test suite'), with the scope 'including its test cases' adding a distinguishing detail. This differentiates it from siblings like list_test_suites (a listing operation) and get_test_run/get_test_results (which are run/result-focused rather than suite-definition-focused).

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 gives within-tool usage guidance — 'Set includeStats for run history and pass rate, includeExtractionVariables for the variables the suite's cases extract and pass on to later cases' — and notes the precondition 'Requires project context.' However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over siblings like list_test_suites, get_test_run, or get_test_results; the selection context is only implied.

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