List Manual Test Suites

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the return content (IDs, names, parent relationships, child counts) and warns that suite names are case-sensitive, which is a real behavioral constraint beyond the safety hint. It stops short of describing hierarchy depth or pagination behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical prerequisite, then the filtering parameter. No filler; each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return shape and gives the pre-call dependency on create_manual_test_case. Adequate for a simple read tool, though it could note whether the hierarchy is flat or nested and how deep it traverses.

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 50% – projectId has only a trivial 'Project ID' description and parentSuiteId is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining exactly what parentSuiteId does ('list only the direct children'), which is the one non-obvious parameter, though projectId semantics and any format constraints remain unstated.

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 ('Get the test suite folder hierarchy for a project') and enumerates what is returned (suite IDs, names, parent relationships, child counts). It also implicitly separates itself from list_manual_test_cases by scoping to suites rather than cases, and names create_manual_test_case as the downstream consumer.

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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this before create_manual_test_case' and gives the reason (need the exact case-sensitive suiteName). It also documents the alternative mode of use: 'Pass parentSuiteId to list only the direct children of a specific suite.' Both when-to-use and how-to-narrow are spelled out.

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