get_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get results for a test', which implies a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for clarity and completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'results' entail, how they are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'test_id' documented as 'Test ID'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 'Get results for a test' restates the tool name 'get_results' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('results') but lacks detail on scope or format, and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_results_for_case' or 'get_results_for_run'.

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 'get_results_for_case' or 'get_results_for_run'. The description implies usage for retrieving results but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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