get_test_learnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-centric behavior (summarize completed tests) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is adequate but lacks depth on potential limitations or assumptions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. It is concise and informative, though the lack of parameter descriptions slightly reduces efficiency for an agent.

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?

With no output schema and 3 optional parameters with enums, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect results or describe the return structure. For a tool that can filter by type and platform, this omission limits usability.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (type, team_id, platform). Despite having enums, the agent receives no guidance on how to filter results or what each parameter does. This is a critical gap.

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 that the tool summarizes completed test results, specifying the attributes covered (what was tested, winning variant, lift, statistical significance, action taken) and the scope (in-campaign A/B tests and vendor/partner evaluations). This differentiates it from siblings like get_test (focused on a single test) and list_tests (listing tests).

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 clear context on what the tool covers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_tests for a list of all tests, get_test for detailed results of a specific test). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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