get_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output but does not state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or require specific permissions. For a data retrieval tool, this is a notable gap as the agent cannot infer safety from the description alone.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. It lists key fields without excessive detail. While it could be structured into bullet points for clarity, the conciseness is appropriate for a straightforward retrieval 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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output by listing relevant fields. It does not include edge cases or error conditions, but for a basic 'get by ID' tool, the completeness is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'test_id' described as 'Test ID'. The description adds meaning by enumerating the output fields (hypothesis, variants, results, etc.), helping the agent understand what constitutes 'full details' and how to interpret the response. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and explicitly names the resource 'full details for a single test', listing the fields included (hypothesis, variants, results, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tests which returns a list, or get_test_learnings which may have a different scope.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving comprehensive details for one test, contrasting with list_tests for listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_test_learnings. The context signals and sibling list make the intended use clear, but exclusions are missing.

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