get_atf_suite_result

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies ('get' = read-only). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an AI agent. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with one parameter and clear annotations, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a 'suite result' includes or how the result_sys_id is obtained. While the name and parameter description provide reasonable context, the lack of guidance on the result's structure or source keeps it at minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter result_sys_id is fully documented in the input schema ('System ID of the suite result record'), providing a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 the results of a test suite run' uses a clear verb and identifies the resource (suite result). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_atf_suite (which gets the suite definition) and list_atf_test_results, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives. The meaning is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for retrieving suite run results.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a previous suite run), how to obtain the result_sys_id, or exclude scenarios where another tool (like list_atf_test_results) would be more appropriate. This leaves usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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