record_test_result

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. Merely stating 'Record' gives minimal transparency for a write 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?

Concise introductory sentence followed by structured Args section. No wasted words, though the Args could be slightly more compact. Good front-loading of purpose.

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 input parameters well but lacks description of return value or side effects. With an output schema present and no annotation, the definition would benefit from explaining what the tool returns or confirms.

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 0%, but the description's Args section adds meaningful semantics (e.g., request_id is 'trace_id from optimize_context', passed is boolean, suite/detials are optional). Adequately compensates for lack of schema info.

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?

Description clearly states it records test run outcomes (pass/fail) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'record_outcome' by noting this is a 'strong signal' from actual test execution, not agent self-report.

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?

Explicitly advises to call 'when actual test execution produced a real pass/fail outcome' and contrasts with 'record_outcome', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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