Get pipeline test report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'bounded' and clarifies it returns test-suite and test-case results, but does not explain the bounds, pagination, or response characteristics. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 sentence, 'Get bounded test-suite and test-case results for one pipeline,' which is concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or filler, easily scannable for an agent.

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?

The description is minimal but the tool has simple parameters and is read-only per annotations, with an output schema. However, the term 'bounded' is left unexplained, and there is no mention of what results include or any limits. Adequate but with a notable gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (project has a description, pipeline_id does not). The description adds negligible parameter meaning beyond the name, only implying pipeline_id is the pipeline identifier. It does not compensate for the gap in schema documentation.

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 the tool gets 'bounded test-suite and test-case results for one pipeline,' which is a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (test report). It is distinct from the sibling summary tool by implying detailed results, though the term 'bounded' is vague and not clarified.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline_test_report_summary or get_pipeline. There are no exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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