List A/B tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: ordering ('newest first'), the caveat that variant config shape depends on the test, the endpoint, required scopes, data sensitivity, and workspace override behavior. Pagination behavior is not addressed, keeping it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the extra endpoint/scope boilerplate is compact and useful. 'Does not require idempotency' is slightly redundant with idempotentHint=true, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description provides enough for a list tool: it covers ordering, status filtering, workspace override, scopes, and data sensitivity. Remaining gaps like pagination or result-set expectations are minor given the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 67%. The description adds context that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override 'the default workspace configured by environment', which is useful beyond the schema. But it adds no meaning for the status filter beyond the enum in the schema, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource ('List the coach's A/B tests') plus ordering ('newest first') and filter ('optionally filtered by status'). It clarifies write operations stay in the Luca app, but never references the sibling luca_learning_ab_tests_get, so it does not fully differentiate from all siblings.

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?

Gives some context: listing is the only exposed operation for A/B tests, and creating/starting/stopping/adopting are out of scope. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over luca_learning_ab_tests_get or other learning list tools, leaving the choice implied.

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