get_test_result_states_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context by defining what a test result status is (a possible outcome of executing a test case), but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or whether the result is project-scoped beyond the parameter.

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 first two sentences restate the same fact ('Get all test result statuses' / 'Retrieve all test result statuses configured for a project'), which is redundant filler. The third sentence is the only one that earns its place by defining the domain concept.

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 simple read-only collection lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually but not its shape or size. With many near-identical '*_collection' siblings, a one-line disambiguation of what makes test result statuses different from run states would have made this complete.

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 reported at 0% for a single required nested parameter (query.project_id). The description compensates only indirectly by saying the statuses are 'configured for a project', implying project scoping, but never explicitly names the project_id requirement or its format.

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 and resource (retrieve all test result statuses) and scopes it to a project, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_test_run_states_collection or get_issue_statuses_collection, leaving the 'which statuses tool do I want' question to the agent.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a project-scoped read of configured statuses, useful when you need the set of valid outcomes before creating/updating test results. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the adjacent run-state or issue-status lookup tools.

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