get_test_output

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

With no annotations available, the description provides useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: the 'full' flag controls truncation of stdout/stderr, and the return value is a JSON string with specific fields. The verb 'retrieve' also communicates that the operation is read-only, covering the main safety question. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid run_id, but that is a minor gap for a retrieval 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?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries necessary information, with defaults and return details front-loaded and no filler.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with defaults for both parameters and an output schema already present, so the description does not need to explain return structure, yet it does. The Args section fully explains each parameter and the Returns section states the payload shape. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It defines run_id's default behavior (empty string = most recent run) and full's effect on output truncation, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare types and defaults.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve test execution output and logs') and a resource ('from a previous test run'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling run_tests by focusing on a previous run rather than executing tests, but it never names the alternative or states that it does not trigger a run.

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 phrase 'from a previous test run' implies the tool is for inspecting completed runs, and the parameter descriptions clarify defaults, but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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