get_test

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only retrieval and 'full details' signals a comprehensive response, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether authentication is required, or what kind of data is included. It is minimally adequate but adds little context beyond the tool name.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it omits how requestId relates to a test, how to obtain that ID (e.g., from list_tests), and what the returned details include. The phrase 'full details' is vague and leaves the agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no new parameter meaning and doesn't clarify how requestId relates to a test execution, but the schema's 'Clockwork request ID' provides an adequate baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full details of a test execution'), clearly indicating a single-record retrieval. It distinguishes from the sibling list_tests (list vs full details), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The term 'test execution' is reasonably specific but could be clearer about whether this maps to a Clockwork request.

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: after listing tests, get full details of one test execution. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to list_tests as the way to find the requestId, and no exclusions to distinguish it from get_request or other retrieval tools.

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