record_test_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the tool's function and signals its strength, but it omits potential details like idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. Still, it is sufficiently transparent for a simple recording action.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary followed by a brief explanation and an explicit args section. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded summary helps the agent quickly understand the tool.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The tool is fully understandable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: request_id as trace_id, passed as boolean, suite as optional test suite name, and details as optional summary. This adds critical meaning 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 tool's purpose: recording that tests ran and their pass/fail outcome for a request. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'record_outcome' by noting the difference between a real test result and a 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when actual test execution produced a real pass/fail outcome. It also contrasts with 'record_outcome' as a self-report, preventing misuse.

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