unitTestOccurrenceMarkers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify what format the markers are returned in, whether there are pagination considerations, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'unit test occurrence markers' actually are, what format they're returned in, or how the parameters interact. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url and source) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool retrieves unit test occurrence markers, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like unitTestEvaluation or unitTestRun, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this retrieval operation from other unit test-related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple unit test-related tools (unitTestEvaluation, unitTestRun) but no indication of when this specific retrieval operation is appropriate versus those other operations.

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