Test List Suites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'list' implies a read, but there is no statement about cost, filters, ordering, or whether the suites are scoped to a config file or environment. The remaining gaps are low-risk for a zero-argument read, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. There is nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter listing with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description is barely sufficient. It omits the one thing an agent would need to route correctly: what a 'test suite' is here and how these names relate to the test_run_* siblings.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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: 'List available test suites', so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the surrounding test tooling (test_run_phpunit, test_run_kernel, test_scaffold_*), leaving the relationship between 'suites' and runnable tests to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether this should be called before test_run_phpunit, whether it lists PHPUnit groups versus Behat/Nightwatch suites, or when it is unnecessary.

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