get_test_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior test runs, or what the response format is. The '[mode: real]' prefix adds a hint but is not explained, leaving key behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, brief phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the mode tag and main topic, but its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, keeping it from a top score.

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 simple with only two parameters, but the description does not cover output format, how 'recent' is defined, or how the tool relates to sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description carries more responsibility than it fulfills.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either 'projectPath' or 'limit'. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning solely from names, which is insufficient given the complete lack of explanatory text.

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 'Recent test executions for the project.' indicates that the tool returns test execution history, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'. It still distinguishes from siblings such as run_test or get_pending_fixes, but the noun-phrase form is less clear than a full sentence.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like checking past test results or selecting it over run_scenario_test, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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