get_testing_center_results

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but it does not elaborate on error handling, whether the run may still be in progress, or any rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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 low complexity (2 simple parameters), the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool returns ('status and results') and an operational prerequisite. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the result format or potential 'not found' behavior, but this is acceptable for a straightforward getter.

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 does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed because both parameters are clearly documented in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('status and results of a previously submitted Agentforce Test Run from the Testing Center'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like push_to_testing_center by focusing on retrieval rather than submission.

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 phrase 'previously submitted' and the reference to the Testing Center provide clear context that this tool is used after a test run has been pushed, and the auth requirement sets a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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