get-launch-test-results

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

The description does not disclose behavior beyond the generic 'get test results'. With no annotations, it should explain pagination (page/size), read-only nature, authorization requirements, or response format. None are mentioned.

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 overly terse (one short sentence). While concise, it omits essential details that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, making it under-specified rather than efficiently descriptive.

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 absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the response format, pagination behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 low (33%): only the required 'id' has a description ('Launch ID'), while 'page' and 'size' are undocumented. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, defaults, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 states the tool gets test results for a specific launch, but it lacks specificity: it does not clarify whether results are returned individually or as a list, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get-test-result or list-test-results.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-test-result (single test) or list-test-results (list all). There are no usage conditions or exclusions.

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