GetDataServiceApiTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description '获取API测试结果' only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns synchronous or asynchronous results, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase '获取API测试结果', which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, but it may be overly terse given the lack of context. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it borders on under-specification.

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 the complexity (a tool for retrieving API test results), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the results contain, how they are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like error cases. The schema covers the parameter well, but the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, detailing that 'TestId' comes from 'TestDataServiceApi' or 'ListDataServiceApiTest'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.

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 '获取API测试结果' (Get API test results) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetDataServiceApiTest' in Chinese. It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource 'API测试结果' (API test results), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'TestDataServiceApi' or 'SaveDataServiceApiTestResult' beyond the basic action. The purpose is clear at a surface level but lacks specificity about what kind of results or context.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a TestId from 'TestDataServiceApi' or 'ListDataServiceApiTest'), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetDataServiceApi' or 'GetDataServicePublishedApi'. Usage is implied through the parameter description in the schema, but the description itself offers no explicit context.

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