get_automation_test_results

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing cache semantics: skipped or multi-tick tests leave the cache unchanged and the call fails when nothing has completed this session. That failure mode and staleness rule are real behavioral context. The 'without running anything' clause partly restates readOnlyHint, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Returns block is genuinely needed because no output schema exists. Minor redundancy: the field list appears in prose and again inside the Returns object, which wastes a little space.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape, the cache/failure semantics, and the producing tools. An agent has everything required to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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+resource ('Returns the cached result of the last synchronous test') and immediately scopes it against the producers of that cache (run_automation_test, start_gauntlet_run). It also enumerates the payload fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly signals the read-only, non-executing nature ('without running anything') and the prerequisite that a test must have completed in this editor session, which effectively tells the agent to call run_automation_test/start_gauntlet_run first. It does not, however, explicitly name a fallback tool to use when the cache is empty.

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