cypress_get_results

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get test results' without detailing what 'results' entail (e.g., pass/fail status, logs) or any side effects. The return format is not described, which is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 one sentence, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 optional param, no output schema), the description gives a basic understanding. However, it lacks details on what constitutes 'results,' error handling, and return format. A more complete description would include brief output clarification.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying behavior when runId is omitted ('or all results if no ID provided'). The schema already covers the single parameter, so the description provides useful context.

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 verb (get), resource (test results from a previous Cypress run), and scope (by run ID or all if no ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cypress_get_screenshots which target different resources.

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?

It implies usage context: retrieving results from a previous run, optionally filtering by run ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like cypress_get_screenshots for other data.

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