get_test_report

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. Describes return format, error case, and implies non-destructive nature. Could add more about performance guarantees but sufficient for a read-only 0-param 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure. No fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a 0-param tool with no output schema, description covers input, output fields, error handling, and next steps. Complete and actionable.

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 exist, schema coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to add parameter info, but baseline 4 is appropriate as it's not required to elaborate.

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 reads a report from a previous run_tests and returns specific metrics (total, passed, failed, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings by highlighting cost savings and linking to get_failure_details.

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 says when to use (repeated status checks during operations) and when to switch to alternative (use get_failure_details if failed > 0). No ambiguity.

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