Read test results

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description usefully adds that it reads only the most recent run and requires a prior test execution. However it does not disclose the significant default behavior that failedOnly=true means only failures are shown unless overridden, nor what happens if the expected XML is missing.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core operation front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing redundant.

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, the description should say more about what 'parse results' yields (per-test pass/fail, failure messages, counts) so an agent knows what it can rely on. It also leaves the failedOnly default's filtering effect unexplained. Adequate to select the tool, but thin for interpreting its output.

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 coverage is 67%: module and projectDir are documented in-schema, while failedOnly carries only a default of true with no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the schema does essentially all the work; baseline 3 is appropriate for mid-range coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Parse'), resource ('JUnit XML results'), and precise scope ('last unit test (test*UnitTest) or instrumented test (connected*AndroidTest) run'). The gradle task-name patterns make it unambiguous which artifact it reads, distinguishing it from siblings like gradle_run and lint_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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool and ordering ('Run tests with gradle_run first'), which is the key usage condition. It does not state what to do when no results exist or when to prefer lint_results or ide_run instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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