list_test_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'list' without explaining what 'list' entails—such as pagination behavior, return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise with just two words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but for this dimension alone, it earns top marks for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'listing' entails (e.g., format, pagination), how results are returned, or any behavioral context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 both parameters ('project' and '$top'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or their impact on results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 test plans' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'test plans' but fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_test_plan' or provide any scope or purpose details beyond the obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_plan' (which likely retrieves a single test plan) or 'ado_api_call' (a generic API tool).

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