Get latest results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that no execution occurs ('without re-running it') and that only the latest report is read, but it omits what happens when no report exists or what the summary contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause (most recent, JUnit report, without re-running) carries information.

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 tool is simple and has no output schema, so return-value detail is not required. Still, the definition leaves the agent guessing on the suite identifier format and on fallback behavior when no prior report exists.

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% for the single 'suite' parameter, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'For a suite' only vaguely indicates the parameter's role; it never says whether the value is a suite name, path, or ID.

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?

Specific verb ('Summarize') plus resource ('most recent JUnit report') with scope ('for a suite'), and the phrase 'without re-running it' distinguishes it from run_tests. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named, so not a 5.

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 clause 'without re-running it' implies the use case (inspect existing results rather than trigger a new run), which implicitly routes against run_tests. However, no alternatives are named and there is no guidance on when to prefer get_failure_details or query_test_data for drill-down.

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