List Test Controls

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, but the description adds useful behavior: the default view, view-specific filtering, inclusion of the quarantine budget in the response, and the logic excluding candidates that always pass on retry. It does not describe pagination behavior, which keeps it from being fully comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the tool purpose and then explains the views and filters in a dense but relevant paragraph. It is longer than average but every major clause contributes to selecting a view or interpreting a parameter.

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 read-only listing tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description covers the view logic, key filters, candidate exclusion rule, and a response detail (quarantine budget). It could do more to describe the returned list shape, but the critical behavioral context is present.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully adds context for view, state, covers, reason, search, and assignee beyond what the schema provides. The page parameter is not explained in the description, but most parameter semantics are clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists tests under Test Controls in a project. It also distinguishes the available views (quarantined, critical, watched, candidates), so an agent can understand the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 explains when each view applies and how filters map to the quarantined view, including that settings changes are only done in the app. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_test_controls or get_quarantine, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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