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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the asynchronous nature of verdict computation, which helps set expectations. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but for a read tool this is sufficient context.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and read-only nature, the second explains what it reports and the async behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool is a simple getter with an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (verdict and reasoning) and its async caveat. It also distinguishes from the security-control equivalent. It could mention more about when the verdict is available, but it already covers the key risk of reading 'pending or absent' results.

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 already describes model_id and functional_test_id well (67% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema, but it does clarify the relationship between the functional test and its evidence in the context of the verdict. Since server_version lacks a description and the description doesn't compensate for that gap, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads the sufficiency verdict for a functional test, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('functional test'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_sufficiency by noting it covers functional conformance rather than security controls, making its purpose 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 names the analogous sibling tool get_sufficiency, indicating when to use this tool versus that one. It also notes that the verdict is computed asynchronously, so agents understand the result may be pending or absent, which is valuable usage context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance beyond the sibling distinction.

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