record_test_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context about signal strength and the distinction from self-reporting, but does not state whether the record is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what side effects it has on future decisions.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds a crisp distinction and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds signal without repetition or filler.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning well. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it could have been richer about mutation side effects and storage semantics.

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%, yet the description explains every parameter: request_id comes from the optimize_context response, passed means all tests passed vs. any failed, suite is an optional test suite name, and details is an optional summary. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: record that tests ran and passed/failed for a request. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling record_outcome, telling the agent this tool captures actual test execution rather than an 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?

Gives a clear condition: call this when actual test execution produced a real pass/fail outcome. It also names the alternative it should not be confused with, record_outcome, and explains the distinction (self-report vs. strong signal).

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