te_get_policy_test_result

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is minimally transparent. However, with no annotations, it carries full burden; it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Overall, it provides basic but insufficient behavioral detail.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word adds value, with no redundant information.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps: it does not explain the 'raw' parameter or the meaning of 'readable-key result ID', leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The 'raw' boolean parameter and 'result_id' string are not explained; the description only mentions 'result ID' without clarifying the format or role of 'raw'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Get one policy test result by readable-key result ID', which specifies the verb (get), resource (policy test result), and method (by ID). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'te_get_policy_test_results' (plural), which likely retrieves multiple 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for selecting this tool over siblings like 'te_get_policy_test_results' or others.

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