Get Test Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the result is non-recursive, attachment references identify their verified owner, and downloads require calling prepare_attachment_download and using the returned Lucius URL before expiry. This is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds an actionable attachment workflow that is directly relevant. No filler is present, though the second sentence is dense.

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 the annotations, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope exclusion, and attachment handling without missing anything needed for correct invocation. The tool is simple and the description completes 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains test_result_id, project_id, and output_format precisely. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('one complete TestOps result'), and adds an explicit scope limitation ('without recursively reading related results'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools and makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 first sentence gives clear context for when to use this tool: retrieving a single complete result, not recursively related results. The attachment guidance also routes the agent to prepare_attachment_download when needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives for retrieving multiple results.

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