test_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states no re-execution occurs and explains the verbose flag's effect. It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits, but as a read-only inspection tool, this is acceptable.

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 very concise, using bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses efficient formatting.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main operation and parameter semantics. It mentions the output shape is same as test_run. The omitted session_id is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains the 'op' and 'params' (verbose flag) but does not describe 'session_id' or the structure of 'params' beyond the verbose example. The addition of verbose=True detail is helpful but incomplete.

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 tool is for inspecting test results without re-execution, using the 'results_get' operation. It distinguishes from 'test_run' by noting it re-fetches the most recent run payload. The resource form and ops are explicitly listed.

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 reading results, not running tests, and mentions preferring the resource form for active-session reads. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond the implied sibling 'test_run'.

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