get_pyexamine_result_by_commit

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'query results based on commit hash' and provides no detail on return format, error handling (e.g., missing commit), or whether teamProjectId is required in certain situations. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key criterion (commit hash) and clearly states the action and resource. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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 is a simple lookup with 2 parameters, both documented in the schema. There is no output schema, so return value disclosure is not required. However, the description lacks any guidance on how this tool relates to siblings like get_latest_pyexamine_result or get_code_analysis_results, which is a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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%, meaning both commitHash and teamProjectId have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states 'commit hash 기준으로' (based on commit hash) and 'code-analysis(PyExamine) 결과를 조회한다' (query PyExamine results), indicating a specific retrieval action with a specific resource. This differentiates it from siblings like get_latest_pyexamine_result or get_code_analysis_results by explicitly scoping to commit hash.

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. It does not mention that it is intended for querying results by a specific commit, nor does it contrast with get_latest_pyexamine_result for latest results or get_code_analysis_results for general queries. This leaves the agent to infer the usage context.

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