test_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that the data lives outside the workspace, but it does not disclose behavior when no summary exists, authentication requirements, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description leaves parameter semantics and selection behavior unspecified. It is minimally adequate for a simple optional-parameter read tool, yet it has clear gaps that a richer description should close.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain task_id or iteration. The parameter names hint at their roles, but the agent cannot tell whether they filter, select, or override the 'last' summary, or how optionality interacts with the described behavior.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('last structured execution/test summary'), and a distinguishing scope ('outside the workspace'). This clearly separates it from the workspace-centric sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 for when to use this tool: when the latest structured test/execution summary from outside the workspace is needed. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the external-workspace framing makes the intended usage reasonably apparent.

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