get_test_details

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

The description does not add behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). Annotations cover safety but the description omits details like error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the build/test is not found. With no extra context, transparency is limited.

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 extremely concise (5 words). It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, given the tool's complexity (4 parameters), slightly more detail would be helpful, but the current brevity does not detract from clarity.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, the relationship between buildId and buildNumber, or how testNameId filters details. Context signals show many sibling tools, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage without schema inspection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters (e.g., buildId vs. buildNumber), but the schema already documents all four parameters adequately. Description adds no param meaning beyond 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 'Get detailed information about test failures' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about test failures'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_test_failures', which likely lists failures. Purpose is unambiguous but lacks distinction from related tools.

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 like 'list_test_failures' or 'get_build_results'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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