safe_test_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states what is returned but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only), side effects, or performance characteristics. The 'safe' prefix hints at low risk but is not confirmed.

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 a single sentence that packs essential information: the return type (compact verification summary) and what it excludes. It is concise and front-loaded, but a slightly more structured approach (e.g., separate sentences for purpose and constraints) could improve clarity.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and exclusion. However, it lacks details on the output format or content beyond being 'compact', and does not confirm safety or non-intrusiveness, which are important for a 'safe' 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?

The only parameter (task_id) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it returns a 'compact verification summary' and explicitly excludes stdout/stderr and test log content, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_summary that likely include those.

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 implies when to use (when you only need a compact summary without logs) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. It relies on the agent inferring usage from the exclusion mention.

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