testers_get

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

Description is minimal: 'Get the current tester allowlist' implies a read operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, permissions, or that editId is needed (though schema shows required). No info on idempotency or side effects. With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on description, which is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence (8 words) communicates core purpose without any wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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 low complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description is functional but lacks context such as expected response format or relationship to editing flow. Minimal completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain that editId comes from edits_insert). Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the current tester allowlist for a track.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tester allowlist'), and the scope ('for a track') differentiates it from sibling tools like testers_patch (modify) and tracks_get (track info).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., testers_list, testers_patch). Lacks context on prerequisites like obtaining an editId via edits_insert, or when not to use it. Implied purpose only.

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