list_automated_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: fullTitle is a server-reconstructed join key with a specific format, hand-built values fail validation, and each row reports whether it is already linked. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'Search' and 'recorded' make the non-mutating nature reasonably clear.

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 three sentences with no filler. The most important constraint (take fullTitle from this tool) is front-loaded, followed by the source/resource context and filtering options. Every sentence earns its place and the emphatic 'ALWAYS' is justified by the validation risk.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling context: what it searches, why it matters, the critical fullTitle constraint, filtering parameters, and the linked-status field in results. It is slightly thin on the exact response shape or pagination mechanics, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: fullTitle is server-reconstructed for identity validation, linkStatus 'unlinked' means no manual case links yet, search is a title substring, and cursor/limit control pagination. These details reinforce the schema without contradicting it.

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 opens with 'Search the automated (Playwright) test identities recorded for a project' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself by naming the dependent tools link_automated_test / bulk_link_automated_tests and explaining that it provides the required pwTestId/fullTitle pair. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to its many 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?

The description gives explicit, actionable guidance: 'ALWAYS take fullTitle from this tool' and explains that a hand-built fullTitle fails identity validation. It also frames the tool as the source for the exact pair that linking tools require, so an agent knows when to call it. Filtering options (search, linkStatus, cursor/limit) further clarify invocation scenarios.

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