record_test_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate side effects (e.g., that this is a write operation that creates a new record), required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The minimal description fails to add cautionary or operational 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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words, which aligns with conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail—for a tool with many parameters and siblings, brevity leads to inadequacy. It earns a middle score for being clean but under-informative.

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 (6 required), no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools. The single-sentence description leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly. It does not explain the meaning of each parameter, required input formats, or what happens upon success/failure. This is critically incomplete.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters (6 required) are explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, so the agent must infer the purpose of each field. This is a critical gap given the number and requirements.

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-resource pair ('record the result of a test execution') which makes the general purpose clear. However, it lacks additional details that would distinguish it from sibling tools like 'report_defect' or 'validate_qa_output', which might also involve recording results. A more precise scope would elevate it to a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest any sibling tools for different scenarios. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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