get_job_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates basic functionality. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, pagination, or default behavior for 'include_tests'. The schema mentions a default for limit and include_tests, but the description does not reiterate these defaults.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and one key option. However, it could be restructured to better front-load the most important information or add a note about sibling tools.

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 is minimally complete for a simple tool with well-described schema. However, it lacks context about the 'include_tests' parameter's effect on output (summary vs. detailed), default values, and how the tool fits into the workflow of fetching test results. Given no output schema, a bit more explanation would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional status filtering, which matches the enum. It does not elaborate on 'limit', 'include_tests', or the relationship between run_id and job_id, so it contributes little beyond the schema.

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' and the resource 'test results for a job', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_job, get_job_logs, or get_failed_tests by focusing on test results with optional status filtering.

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_failed_tests, get_slow_tests, or get_test_history, which are listed as siblings. A user must infer the tool's purpose without any explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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