get_testers

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

With no annotations, the description only indicates it returns tester information and email addresses. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., only active testers), but being a getter, it's likely non-destructive.

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?

Description is concise and structured with Args/Returns sections. However, the Args section largely restates schema information, which could be trimmed for better conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. The two simple required parameters are explained, and the return type is noted.

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 0%, so description compensates by listing parameters and giving brief meanings ('App package name', 'Track name'). However, it does not specify format or allowed values (e.g., track enum), leaving some ambiguity.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'testers for a specific testing track,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_app or get_releases. It also provides parameter details and return information.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_testers or get_releases. No context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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