Test Result Summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only retrieval and avoids implying side effects, but it adds no detail about what the summary includes, how results are aggregated, or any operational caveats.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are immediately legible.

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 two-parameter getter with a full input schema and an output schema, the basic contract is clear. However, without any usage-direction or behavioral caveats, the description is not fully complete for an agent selecting among a large set of sibling tools.

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 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for run_id and github_ref. The description only restates the context 'specific CI workflow run' and contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('test results summary'), and a clear scope ('specific CI workflow run'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools that are analysis-oriented, such as analyze_test_coverage or detect_test_patterns.

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 phrase 'for a specific CI workflow run' implies the intended use case and matches the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the many analysis-focused siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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