get_result_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds the access restriction 'Auditor-only,' which is not captured in annotations. This context is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. The description does not contradict the annotation.

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 brief, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence is a fragment ('Auditor-only raw evidence') but still front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence gives usage guidance. No wasted words, though the fragment structure could be improved.

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 description covers access restriction and usage conditions, and the output schema presumably documents return values. However, parameter semantics are entirely absent, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions. The tool's role within the sibling context is clear, but parameter context is missing.

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 description provides no information about the two required parameters, run_id and test_id. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent has only the parameter names to infer meaning. The names are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any semantic value or clarify expected format or relationship.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'Auditor-only raw evidence,' which combined with the name get_result_detail clearly indicates it retrieves raw result details. It also distinguishes itself from sibling getters by specifying it returns raw evidence rather than summaries or test lists. However, the description lacks an explicit verb, making it a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use only when result_detail, error_record or script_block_file is requested.' This clearly states when the tool is appropriate and implies when it should not be used. It does not name alternative tools, but the condition is specific and actionable.

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