parse_junit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating that if the file doesn't exist or XML is malformed, the tool fails with an explanatory message. It also outlines the return structure. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only (non-destructive), which is a minor gap but acceptable given the context.

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 moderately concise, with a clear first sentence, usage guidance, and parameter details. It could be slightly more compact (e.g., merging the parameter and return details), but it remains well-structured and informative without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return structure, and error behavior. The sibling tool is mentioned, providing full context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 input schema only defines 'path' as a string. The description adds critical semantics: it specifies the path can be absolute or relative to the server directory, and that it must point to a single JUnit XML file. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and adds value.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Parsea UN reporte JUnit XML y devuelve un resumen estructurado.' It uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('JUnit XML report'), and distinguishes from sibling tool flakiness_report by noting it is for a single file, while flakiness_report is for comparing runs.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('cuando tengas la ruta a un archivo de resultados JUnit XML... y quieras saber qué pasó en esa corrida') and provides an alternative for different needs ('Para comparar varias corridas usá flakiness_report'). This clear guidance helps the agent choose correctly.

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