Get failure artifacts from test-results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans the test-results directory and returns deterministic artifact locations, and it implies the output fields ('screenshotPath + tracePath') via the instruction to pass them into the analyzer. This is sufficient for a read-only search tool. It does not mention error behavior when no artifacts are found, but that is a minor gap.

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 just two sentences. The first states the action and outputs, the second provides a deterministic guarantee and the next step. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description tells the model what it returns (screenshot path, trace.zip), how it behaves (deterministic), and what to do next (pass into analyze_and_fix_selector). It is well-integrated into the workflow and covers the essential context for correct invocation. Missing artifact handling is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 includes full descriptions for both parameters (tag and projectRoot), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema; it does not explain how tag or projectRoot affect the scan. The example value 'AUT-589-1' is in the schema, not the description. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Scan' and clearly identifies both the target resource ('test-results directory') and the output artifacts ('latest screenshot path, trace.zip path'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'analyze_and_fix_selector' by positioning itself as the retrieval step, making its purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs the model to 'pass screenshotPath + tracePath into analyze_and_fix_selector', giving a clear next step and the condition for use (whenever failure artifacts are needed). It also explains the benefit ('deterministic artifact location so the model never guesses'), which clarifies why this tool should be used instead of guessing paths. While it doesn't list negative conditions, the directive is strong and actionable.

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