report_test_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It adds 'counts, not full logs,' which clarifies the output type, but it omits whether the tool mutates state, requires permissions, or returns confirmation. The tool appears to be a reporting action but side effects are not described.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds one clarifying parenthetical. No wasted words.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, required fields beyond the schema, or what the tool returns. The parenthetical about counts helps but is insufficient for complete operational guidance.

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?

Only 14% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters. It hints that passed/failed/skipped are counts, but doesn't explain suite, durationMs, or failureSummary beyond what parameter names imply. The schema's enum for result is clear, but no additional meaning is added.

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 clearly states the tool reports test/verify outcomes and restricts scope to counts rather than logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_work, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'Report' and resource 'outcome of a test/verify run' are specific.

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?

The description implies usage when a test/verify run has completed and you need to submit its outcome. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like log_work or update_progress, nor any exclusions.

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