search_test_plans

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the return structure with isLast heuristic, pagination behavior (defaults and server-side limit), and strict TQL syntax rules (spaces, quotes, AND only). It also notes field variability by Zephyr version, providing essential behavioral context for correct usage.

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 concise at 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and endpoint. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, return structure, pagination, TQL syntax, and common fields. No redundant or misleading statements.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure. It covers pagination, TQL syntax, and field constraints. With 4 parameters all documented, and no nested objects or enums, the description is complete for a search tool. The sibling tools confirm this is a read operation, and the description aligns perfectly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds deeper meaning: explains the query parameter as TQL with syntax examples, clarifies the fields parameter is sent as comma-separated, and reveals the API server-side default for maxResults (200) which goes beyond the schema's stated default (50). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 clearly states it searches Zephyr Scale test plans using a TQL query via the GET /testplan/search endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_test_cases and search_test_runs by specifying 'test plans' and providing detailed TQL syntax rules.

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 provides clear usage context, including pagination parameters and TQL syntax rules. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the tool name and context signals make it obvious for searching test plans. The guidance on commonly supported fields adds practical value.

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