post_test_result

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool stores a result, makes it visible in the UI, and is used for regression status. It includes a detailed 0-100 scoring scale, which adds behavioral context beyond a simple store operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage. The scoring scale is integrated efficiently without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (store operation, 6 required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and scoring. It is nearly complete, though it could mention idempotency or overwriting behavior, but that is not essential.

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 coverage is 83% (5 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the scoring scale for the 'score' parameter and specifying that 'testCaseId' comes from 'get_workspace_state testCases', enhancing 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'store' and the resource 'scored result of one test case run'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_regression_status and add_test_cases by specifying it is for storing a single test result.

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 explicitly says 'Call after you run a test case against the model and evaluate the response.' and notes that the result is used by get_regression_status, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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