testmo_list_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key nuance (only tests with recorded results) and clarifies the test_id linkage, but omits other behavioral details like pagination behavior or that it's a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it). This is partial but not complete transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main action is stated first, and the critical caveat about recorded results is front-loaded in a clear note. Every phrase adds value.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is compact. It addresses the most important surprise (recorded result filtering) and the run_test_id relationship, but doesn't cover pagination, expand options, or result structure. It's adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a parameter-rich tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; the test_id note relates to the output rather than input parameters, so it doesn't improve parameter understanding.

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 'List recorded test results for a run' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates from siblings by noting it returns tests with recorded results, not every case, which distinguishes it from run/case listing tools.

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 implies its use when you need recorded results for a run, and adds a cross-reference to recoding results via test_id. However, it does not explicitly present alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is indirect rather than explicit.

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