read_test_execution

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Fetch' and the 'last' semantics, but does not describe error behaviors, permission requirements, or what happens if no execution exists. As a read operation, the risk is lower, but the description lacks rich behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the action and scope. The parenthetical function name adds technical reference without bloating. Each element earns its place.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain parameter relationships, the meaning of 'last', return format, or edge cases. While the core purpose is clear, the surrounding context is underdeveloped.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions test plan, build, and platform conceptually without explaining any of the 8 parameters (e.g., getBugs, testCaseExternalId, buildName vs buildId). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'the last execution result for a test case within a test plan/build/platform.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_test_case or create_test_execution by focusing on execution 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare with other read tools like read_test_case or list_builds. The context 'within a test plan/build/platform' implies filtering but does not explain when this tool is appropriate.

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