Test Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it discovers files via zuul-manifest.json and supports specific test formats, which goes beyond the basic annotations.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then provides discovery context and accepted formats, and ends with a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 description covers the tool's scope (JUnit XML parsing), discovery mechanism, supported formats, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so explaining the return structure is handled externally. The description is complete for a read-only test-result fetch 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by clearly documenting each parameter: uuid, tenant, url (alternative to uuid+tenant), and failures_only (default true). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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's purpose: 'Parse JUnit XML test results from a build's log directory.' This uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('test results from a build's log directory'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_log or get_build_failures.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it discovers test files via zuul-manifest.json and supports tempest, tobiko, and any JUnit XML output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer this is for fetching test results from builds.

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