get_test_run_results

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get test results') and lists default values (top=200, project default). However, it does not disclose critical behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is the full burden since no annotations are provided.

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 short and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter purposes adequately. However, it omits return value structure or pagination details (though an output schema exists to compensate). The completeness is sufficient but not exemplary.

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 adds meaning for each parameter (e.g., default behavior for project, filter for outcome). But explanations are brief and lack constraints or format details, providing moderate added value.

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 results for a specific test run using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_test_runs, which fetches runs instead.

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 versus alternatives, nor any scenarios or limitations mentioned. The description is purely functional and lacks usage context.

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