Reflect: Get Test Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the result includes name, description, and all recorded steps, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not describe response format, errors, or other behavioral edge cases.

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 core description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose and return content. The toolset label and parameter block are mildly redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and not padded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the required ID and what the response contains. It could be more complete by noting alternatives or exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the description covers the essential invocation context.

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% for the single testId parameter, and the description's parameter text duplicates the schema exactly. No additional format, example, constraints, or contextual meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb-resource pair: getting the full detail of a reflect test. It adds helpful specifics by listing name, description, and all recorded steps, which helps distinguish it from list/status siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative sibling.

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 instead of siblings such as reflect_list_tests or reflect_get_test_status. The description simply describes the action without exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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