get_results_for_case

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 the tool 'Get results' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, if it returns paginated data, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential data retrieval complexity.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying it's for test results), but it's efficiently concise overall.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'results' include (e.g., data structure, fields) or behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool in a complex testing context, this lacks sufficient detail to guide effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'run_id' and 'case_id' as required numeric IDs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationship context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get results') and target ('for a test case in a run'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'results' entail (e.g., test outcomes, logs) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_results' or 'get_results_for_run', making it vague in context.

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' (which might fetch all results) or 'get_results_for_run' (which might fetch results for an entire run). The description implies a narrow scope but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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