test_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses what is measured (only agent-run tests), what the output conveys (pass/fail, counts, last-failure reason, timestamp) and a non-obvious derived trait (stale when code changed after the last run, or never tested). It omits whether the call is read-only, its cost, or error behavior, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

It front-loads with a rhetorical question ('Is the code really tested?') that delays the actual operation, then packs return-value, scoping, and staleness detail into a single dense run-on sentence. The content mostly earns its place, but the structure is cluttered rather than cleanly segmented.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does: pass/fail, counts, why the last run failed, when it ran, and stale/never-tested state. Combined with complete schema coverage for both parameters, an agent has enough to call the tool and interpret results, with minor gaps only around read-only/error behavior.

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 both 'project' and 'session' are already documented in the schema, including their defaults. The description only restates the project-default scoping and the session default ('newest session in this project'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: the test status of code within an agent session (passed/failed, counts, failure reason, timing, staleness). It is clearly a status-inspection tool distinct from siblings like ready_to_merge or check_my_work, though it never names an alternative to route against. Purpose is clear but not sharply differentiated from siblings.

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?

Implicit guidance is present — 'Only tests an agent ran count' and 'Default: the newest session in this project' tell the agent when the tool is meaningful and which session it targets. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings (e.g., agents_now for sessions, check_my_work for review), so usage is only implied.

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