unitTestEvaluation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-disclose mutability. The description does add context that this is a post-run evaluation focused on alerts. It does not go further to describe what the returned alerts look like or how much of the test is available, so behavioral coverage is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences cover purpose, contextual limit, and guidance on the preferred sibling. There is no filler or repeated schema content, and the most important scoping ('alerts a run reported') is front-loaded.

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 2-param read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the precise return shape and does not clarify how the returned alerts are structured, especially because there is no output schema. The description is viable but leaves an agent to infer a good deal about the response.

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 input schema already documents both the required `clas` object and the `flags` object, including accepted JSON-string forms and ADT defaults. The description itself adds little param semantic value beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 states that the tool returns 'the evaluation behind a unit-test run, for the alerts a run reported', which identifies the resource and output topic clearly enough. It also distinguishes the tool from runTests by noting that runTests is preferred for active test execution and assert-message reporting. However, 'The evaluation behind...' is slightly indirect and lacks a precise verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves'.

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 names runTests as the preferable sibling and explains why: it 'activates first and reports each failure with its assert message'. This is a useful when-to-use comparison that helps an agent avoid selecting the wrong tool. It does not fully spell out exact situations for choosing unitTestEvaluation, though the phrase 'for the alerts a run reported' gives reasonable context.

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