get_test_record

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: comment_html carries raw HTML comments, plain-text comments return as-is, and verification of coordinates via list_test_records. No contradiction with annotations, and the added detail goes beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: it states the function, directs to alternatives, and notes output behavior. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has read-only annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers usage alternatives, output nuances, and verification steps, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds a hint about test_case_id format ('as returned by list_test_records') but does not significantly extend the schema's parameter explanations, which is acceptable given the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Get full detail') and names the exact resource ('one test-case iteration inside a test run'), clearly distinguishing it from run-wide summaries and run metadata tools. It also names sibling tools explicitly, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use list_test_records for run-wide summaries, get_test_run for run metadata, and verify coordinates via list_test_records if not found. This provides clear alternatives and context for selecting this tool.

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