list_atf_test_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a bit of context about the scope ('individual test results within a suite run'), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no suite_result_sys_id is provided. It adds minimal value 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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a straightforward listing tool with two optional parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what it lists, and the schema covers parameters. However, it does not mention the default limit or any implicit behaviors like whether results are exhaustive, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. It's adequate but not exceptionally rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; the term 'suite run' aligns with the suite_result_sys_id parameter but no additional semantics are given. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('individual test results within a suite run'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_atf_tests (which lists tests) and get_atf_suite_result (which gets the suite result itself). It precisely conveys the tool's scope and action.

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 gives clear context ('within a suite run') which implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that get_atf_failure_insight is for failure details or that get_atf_test is for individual tests. This is clear context without direct comparative guidance.

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