Test Manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool re-fetches the last run's payload, does not re-execute, returns full results, and that verbose=True includes every individual result. It also documents call-shape aliases. It stops short of mentioning auth or active-session failure behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, resource form, op specification, and call-shape rule. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

For a single-op tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, its non-executing behavior, the verbose flag, and the canonical call shape. It could more explicitly define session_id and name the alternative execution tool, but the active-session context and test_run reference cover most practical needs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the op as results_get(verbose=False) and defines verbose behavior. However, session_id is only mentioned as remaining top-level; its actual role is left implicit through 'active-session reads'. This is a partial but not complete compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with 'Test result inspection' and explicitly states it re-fetches the most recent test_run payload. It distinguishes itself from test_run by noting 'no re-execution', so an agent can immediately identify this as a read/results tool rather than an execution tool.

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 says 'prefer for active-session reads', giving a clear context for when to use this tool. It also implies the alternative by contrasting with test_run via 'same shape as test_run' and 'no re-execution', though it does not explicitly name an exclusion or say 'use test_run when you need execution'.

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