get_results_for_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format/scope of returned results. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for full utility, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 fetching results (likely involving structured data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'results' include, how they're returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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, with 'run_id' documented as 'Run ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'run_id' is or its format. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 run' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('results for a test run'), but it's vague about what 'results' entails (e.g., test outcomes, metrics, logs) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_results' or 'get_results_for_case'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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_case' (which filters by case). The description implies usage for a specific run but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection among sibling tools.

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