test_results_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not mention pagination, authentication, rate limits, or any dependencies (e.g., build must have test results). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values. However, the description lacks contextual details such as whether the build must have run tests, result ordering, or the relationship to artifacts_list. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 0%, leaving the description to explain the parameters. It only mentions the scope 'for a build' (which maps to build_id) but does not describe the 'limit' parameter, its default, or how it affects results. The schema only provides titles, so the description adds minimal 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 action ('List test results') and the resource ('test results for a build'), making it specific and unambiguous. The [XcodeCloud/BuildArtifacts] prefix adds useful domain context, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like artifacts_list by focusing on test results.

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 implies usage for listing test results of a build but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool's name and the sibling list to infer its place.

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