add_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Add' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a write operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 input schema already documents all parameters well (e.g., status_id meanings like '1=Passed'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter semantics.

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 'Add a test result' states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('test result'), but it's vague about what exactly is being added—it doesn't specify that it's adding a result record with status, comment, etc. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'add_result_for_case' or 'add_results', leaving ambiguity about scope and use cases.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_result_for_case' or 'add_results'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, target systems, or any exclusions, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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