List multi-model test variants

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it reads the project's test/ directory and feeds into multi-model eval, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first delivers purpose, second adds technical context. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded and 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?

No output schema present. The description hints at what is returned (variant names and model tier coverage) but does not specify format or structure. For a listing tool, this is adequate but not complete. Could be improved by noting the output type (e.g., array of strings).

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 has 2 required parameters (ticket, project) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'for a ticket' implying the ticket parameter is a ticket identifier, and project is the project name, but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Minimal value added beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'per-model test variants' for a specific context (ticket, project). It also mentions the file pattern and purpose (feeds multi-model eval), distinguishing it from siblings like list_test_pages or generate_multi_model_tests.

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?

Description specifies when to use: to list test variants for a ticket and see model tier coverage. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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