get_test_results_statistics

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. The description adds the aggregation semantics (counts grouped by status and failure category), but says nothing about how counts are scoped (latest run vs all reruns), what the key set for 'status' and 'failure category' is, or why the call is open-world.

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?

A single compact sentence with the aggregation purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. The trailing 'e.g. one or more test runs' is slightly loose but does carry scope 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?

For a 7-parameter, nested-filter, no-output-schema aggregation tool, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell how the parameters combine, whether statusCodes filters inputs or dimensions the output, or what shape the counts take. The low schema coverage and absence of an output schema place the burden squarely on the description, which does not meet it.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, including a nested 'filter' object documented solely as 'Raw TestResultsFilterApiModel'. The description mentions only 'a filter' and gives no meaning to name, className, namespace, testRunIds, statusCodes, or configurationIds, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: counts of test results broken down by status and failure category. It also clarifies the scope ('for a filter, e.g. one or more test runs'), which implicitly separates it from single-run statistics, but it never names get_test_run_statistics or another sibling to sharpen that distinction.

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 phrase 'for a filter, e.g. one or more test runs' hints at the cross-run aggregation use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_test_run_statistics for a single run). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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