get_test_report

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

The description indicates a read-only operation but does not detail behavioral traits such as whether the report is cached, if it requires a previous test run, or what happens if no tests have been run. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and 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?

While the description states what the tool does, it omits details about the output format or what 'aggregated results' includes. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context on the return value.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema fully covers the parameter space.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get aggregated results of all test runs in the current session. It specifies the resource ('test runs') and action ('get aggregated results'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like 'run_test_scenario'.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it should be used after running tests, but no prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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