Get Functional Test Sufficiency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only with no side effects and explains that the verdict is computed asynchronously after evidence submission, so it may appear pending or absent. This is strong, actionable behavioral context beyond the bare function.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key read-only nature and purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states scope and safety, the second clarifies evidentiary meaning, and the third distinguishes from a sibling while noting async behavior.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, safety, sibling distinction, and async behavior, and an output schema exists for return values. The main gap is the undocumented required server_version parameter, which reduces completeness slightly.

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 coverage is only 67%, and one required parameter, server_version, has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter or add meaning to the parameter list.

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 identifies the specific resource—the sufficiency verdict for a functional test—and states what it does: reports whether attached evidence proves associated objectives and explains the verdict. It also names the sibling get_sufficiency as a distinct security-control analog, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 positions this tool as the functional-conformance counterpart of get_sufficiency, which covers security controls, giving the agent a clear selection rule relative to the most similar sibling. It also adds timing guidance about async computation, so agents know to expect pending or absent results.

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