list_automation_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not disclose what is returned (e.g., names vs. full paths), whether it includes disabled tests, or if any project state is required. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and directly explains the tool's purpose.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the return format or how it fits with sibling tools, so an agent may need to infer what 'available' means or how filtering works. The description is sufficient for basic use but lacks context for borderline cases.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the sole parameter 'filter' is described as 'Filter tests by name substring'. The description itself does not mention the parameter, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: to list available automation tests in the project. The verb 'list' is specific, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'run_automation_test' and 'run_all_automation_tests', which are about execution rather than enumeration.

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. The sibling list contains many related automation-test tools (e.g., run_automation_tests_by_category, get_test_results), but the description does not mention when to prefer this one or how it differs from them.

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