get_launch_tests

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds high-value behavioral context beyond those annotations: response contents (error messages, stack traces), the attachments array shape, and a crucial non-obvious behavior — the X-MCP-Key header requirement for API URLs vs. presigned storage URLs. This is exactly the kind of runtime nuance an agent needs to fetch artifacts correctly.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and scoping, then layers in return details, and reserves density for the attachments/URL auth nuance at the end. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted or promotional.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by documenting what failed tests return (errors, stack traces, attachments, URL handling). It is a bit thin on describing the overall result list shape beyond the attachment nuance, but for a launch-scoped read operation the prerequisites, filtering capabilities, and artifact-fetching behavior are well covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, search, launchId, statuses, and includeErrors with ranges, defaults, formats, and enum values. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The launchId description even provides its own cross-tool sourcing guidance.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Get all tests from a specific launch/run with detailed results.' The term 'specific launch/run' distinguishes it from broad search/list siblings, and the schema's launchId description reinforces the workflow sourcing it from get_launches_statistics/get_launches_trends.

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?

Usage context is implied through the mention of detailed results, error messages, stack traces, and failure investigation attachments, but there are no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' statements, such as directing the agent to search_tests when no launchId is known. The schema's launchId hint (obtain from siblings) supplies workflow context, but the description itself doesn't state exclusions.

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