get_test_report

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

Describes a read-only operation retrieving a report. No annotation contradiction. Discloses return format and content, but could mention if any side effects exist (unlikely).

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?

Two sentences: one defining purpose, one adding context. No redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Covers what the report contains (status, timing, system info) and when it's available (after test run). No output schema needed as description already clarifies return structure.

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 100%, so description adds no extra meaning to the single optional parameter (tsc). Adequate but does not enhance understanding beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a GPU integration test report in JSON format. Specifies source (gpu-test.sh) and contents (per-test status, timing, system info), making it distinct from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

Implies the report exists after a full test run but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude other scenarios.

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