get_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get results for a test' and reveals nothing about pagination, response structure, default behavior, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'get.'

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 minimal and free of filler, being a single clear sentence. It is concise, but it is also somewhat under-specified given the number of parameters and lack of additional context.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and eight parameters including filters and pagination, the description is far too minimal to fully orient an agent. It does not explain return format, filtering semantics, or how results are ordered.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about how the parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 action and resource: getting results for a test. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_results_for_run or get_results_for_case, though the phrase 'for a test' narrows the target resource.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_results_for_case or get_results_for_run. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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