list_atf_test_results

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which indicate read-only and potentially incomplete results. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. Since the description does not contribute beyond annotations, score is low.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word is meaningful.

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 output schema and a simple listing tool, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the returned results look like, how they relate to the suite result, or the default limit behavior. For a tool with many siblings, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions, so the schema already documents them. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'individual test results', and the scope 'within a suite run'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_atf_suites and list_atf_tests by specifying 'test results' rather than suites or tests. However, it could be more explicit about the relationship to suite result.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling list tools (e.g., list_atf_suites, list_atf_tests) but no mention of when to choose this one. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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