get_test_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: *Html duplicate fields are dropped from the response. It says nothing about permissions, what happens when test_result_id doesn't exist, or error behavior, and the presence of an output schema relieves it of describing the return shape in detail. Moderate disclosure, not comprehensive.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the exclusion behavior and the alternative-route hint. It is short and each sentence carries information. The mid-sentence line break and the asterisk notation ("*Html duplicates") make it read as an internal note.

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?

It covers field scope, what gets stripped, and where to go for multi-result data, which is most of what a single-record read needs, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It doesn't address the missing-id/error path, which an agent handling failures would want.

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?

One parameter, test_result_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not directly explain the id beyond the tool fetching a single test result, but 'get one test result' framing plus the required single id makes the parameter's role functionally obvious. There is no format, source, or example anchoring the id; that is the only real gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Get one test result") and enumerates the fields returned (status, duration, message, trace, text fields). It also differentiates itself from list_test_results and get_launch_statistic, so an agent can tell which one is the single-record fetch. It stops short of 5 only because the field list is loose ("the text fields") rather than exhaustive.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for whole-launch data: "For the small table of a whole launch use list_test_results or get_launch_statistic." That is a clear alternative with a condition, which is strong guidance. There is no explicit statement of when-not to use this tool (e.g. for a single test case definition), but the framing is sufficient for selection.

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