Fetch test execution results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior ('does not trigger any execution'), documents the observable status values, and states the empty-array case so the agent can distinguish 'nothing ran' from an error. It stops short of covering pagination, result-set size limits, or auth/rate-limit expectations for a repeatedly polled call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then invocation order, then the exclusion. It is dense but every clause carries operational information — no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (execution status with its enumerable values, agent report as natural-language findings, code report as technical details) and the empty-result behavior. Combined with the required parameter and the dispatch follow-up workflow, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by restating the required suite UUID and by clarifying that analysisIdentifier narrows results 'to a specific analysis run' and can be found in suite data — useful intent that the schema field text alone only partially conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (results of test cases executed by the autonomous agent) and enumerates what each result carries (status, agent report, code report). It is clearly demarcated from siblings by naming wopee_dispatch_agent as the producer and wopee_fetch_artifact as the non-overlapping alternative.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use this after wopee_dispatch_agent'), a polling rule ('if status is IN_PROGRESS, wait and call again'), and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Do NOT use this to fetch test artifacts ... use wopee_fetch_artifact'). Prerequisites (suite UUID) and the optional filter condition are also spelled out.

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