get_tests

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. It only states the basic function without clarifying what 'tests' entails or how the data is returned. The description carries the full burden for transparency but falls short.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing parameters or return value, while still being concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and what input is needed, but it omits details about the output format, possible empty results, or error conditions. For a tool of this complexity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'run_id' described as 'Run ID'. The description adds context by stating 'for a test run', which reinforces the parameter's purpose. However, it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description 'Get tests for a test run' clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('tests'), and relates it to a test run. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_test' (singular) by implying a collection, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_results_for_run'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test' for a single test or 'get_results_for_run' for results. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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