get_tc_success_rate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. The tool is clearly read-only ('Get'), but no additional behaviors (e.g., permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination) are disclosed. Minimal but adequate for a simple query.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, achieving high conciseness. Front-loaded with the key concept. Could benefit from brief structuring (e.g., listing what it returns), but current form is efficient.

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?

Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'success rate analytics' entails (e.g., output format, time series, aggregation). Incomplete for a moderately complex analytics tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the temporal and project focus already present in parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves 'test case success rate analytics over time for a project', specifying the verb (Get), resource (success rate analytics), and temporal scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_statistic_trend or get_automation_chart.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_statistic_trend, get_mute_trend, or get_automation_chart. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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