get_results_for_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a retrieval (read), which implies a safe, non-destructive action. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, filtering, or whether results are for all runs or specific ones. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 sentence that is to the point and front-loaded. It uses no unnecessary words. While brief, it could benefit from additional context, but it is not verbose.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details on the return value format or what exactly constitutes 'results'. For a retrieval tool, this information would help the agent use the output 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Run ID', 'Case ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get results for a test case in a run' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('results for a test case in a run'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_results_for_run' (which gets results for an entire run) and 'get_case' (which gets case details).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when this tool should be preferred over siblings like 'get_results_for_run' or 'get_case', and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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