get_build_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful constraints: status_filter is restricted to 'passed', 'failed', or 'notrun', and limit has an undocumented max of 200, which prevents invalid calls. However, it does not address read-only semantics, behavior on invalid or missing build IDs, or empty-result handling, though the output schema partially covers the return shape.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, followed by four compact, uniformly formatted argument lines with zero filler. Every line earns its place, especially given the schema's 0% description coverage means this text is the only parameter documentation.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the mechanics of invocation are well covered: all params documented, defaults and caps stated, returns handled by the schema. The notable gaps are the absent sibling differentiation against get_failing_tests/get_test_summary and no hint about where a build_id originates, which an agent would need to chain calls correctly.

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, and it does: status_filter gains its valid value set ('passed', 'failed', 'notrun') which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, limit gains its max-200 cap, and offset gains its pagination purpose. Only build_id ('The CDash build ID') is near-tautological, but the other three parameters get meaningfully enriched.

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 opening sentence 'List tests for a specific build, optionally filtered by status' gives a specific verb, resource, and scope in one line. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_dashboard and get_configure_output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related get_failing_tests and get_test_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling get_failing_tests, an agent cannot tell whether to call this with status_filter='failed' or to use the dedicated sibling. The only usage hints are mechanical ('Use for pagination' on offset), not selection criteria.

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