get_test_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Transparently describes that it reads report.json, returns lightweight summary, includes error case, and mentions auto-retry rescued count. Could be improved by noting that it reads a cached report (not real-time), but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Single paragraph with all essential information: purpose, output fields, usage guidance, error case, and follow-up suggestion. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with what it does.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers functionality: what tool does, output contents, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps in information.

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?

No parameters in input schema (baseline 4). No additional parameter information needed. Description adds no param info, but baseline applies.

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?

Clearly states it reads the report from the last run_tests and returns a summary of test results with specific fields (total, passed, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling get_failure_details by specifying its purpose for providing error details only after summary shows failures.

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 states when to use this tool (cheaper than re-running, suitable for repeated status checks) and when to use sibling get_failure_details (if failed > 0). Provides clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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