arm_latest_results

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only GET operation, but lacks details on error behavior, response structure, or any special conditions. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no other safety signals.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and path, followed by a clear purpose statement. Every word contributes meaning with no unnecessary detail.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'detailed latest results' includes, what the output format is, or how the required parameters interact. The agent would likely need to infer usage from the schema and sibling names alone.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the path variable ciJobName. The tool description does not explain the relationship between required parameters like title and projectName, but the schema suffices as a 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 the tool retrieves detailed latest results for a CI job, with the HTTP method and path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like arm_ci_job_history or arm_poll_job_status, which may also involve retrieving CI job data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools.

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