get_test_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description contributes nothing additional: no error behavior for a missing or invalid ID, no note about which result fields come back, and no scoping context (project/run). For a lookup-by-identifier tool this leaves real behavioral gaps.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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 — one required string, no nested objects, no output schema — and the annotations cover the read-only profile, so the definition is minimally viable. Still, with no output schema an agent gets no indication of what a 'test result' object contains or how failures are surfaced.

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 required 'id' parameter. The description only restates that the ID identifies a test result — it gives no format, type of identifier, or source (numeric internal ID vs. external key), so it barely compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a test result') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from relatives such as get_test_run_results or get_test_results_statistics, which also surface result data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling retrieval tools (e.g. get_test_run_results for a batch, get_test_result_reruns for retry history). The agent must infer the selection rule from names alone.

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