testpass_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or any rate limits or data freshness constraints. For a status check tool, this lack of safety disclosure is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and the resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. No redundancy or 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?

The description lists the data returned (status, verdict summary, fail count) but does not specify the format or structure of the response (e.g., JSON fields). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, a brief description of the return structure would improve completeness. As is, it is adequate but has a clear gap.

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%; the single parameter 'run_id' is well-described in the schema as 'The TestPass run id returned by testpass_run'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (Fetch) and the resource (current status, verdict summary, fail count for a TestPass run). It distinguishes 'testpass_status' from siblings like 'testpass_run' (which initiates a run) and 'testpass_report_*' (which generate formal reports), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies usage after a TestPass run (since it fetches status and results), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'testpass_report_html' or 'testpass_run'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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