get_latest_test_results

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the return format including success and error structures. It adds behavioral context such as returning plain text on error and the shape of the success JSON.

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 relatively concise, ending with an illustrative return format. While useful, the example could be shortened or placed in comments without losing clarity. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 simple input (one required parameter) and the presence of output schema-like details, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., no test runs exist, multiple runs), but the error handling is implied. The annotations also support understanding.

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 single parameter 'project_path' is described as 'Path to Xcode project/workspace directory', providing meaning beyond the schema's type definition. Since the schema itself has no parameter descriptions, the description compensates fully, though it could be more specific about allowed paths.

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 clearly states it retrieves test results from the most recent test run. It uses the verb 'get' and specifies the resource 'test results', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_project_tests' which actually execute tests.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a test run must have occurred) or contrast with other tools like 'get_build_results'.

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