record_ci_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions recording a status but fails to disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate request_id, or if it overwrites previous results.

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 concise with a clear main sentence and an 'Args' block. The strong signal context adds some value but is slightly extraneous. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 explains input parameters well but does not cover output, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., invalid request_id). Given the presence of an output schema, the lack of output explanation is acceptable, but the tool's behavior in unusual scenarios is not addressed.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., request_id as trace_id, passed as CI green, pipeline examples). This adds substantial value beyond the input schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 records CI pipeline pass/fail status. The verb 'Record' and resource 'CI pipeline...status' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like record_test_result, which could cause confusion.

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 usage when a CI result is available and notes it's a strong signal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar outcomes (e.g., test results).

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