unitTestOccurrenceMarkers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'occurrence markers' are, how they're used, or what the return value looks like, leaving the AI agent with incomplete context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('url' and 'source') clearly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how these parameters interact or what 'occurrence markers' are in relation to them, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

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 'Retrieves unit test occurrence markers' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (unit test occurrence markers), but it's vague about what 'occurrence markers' specifically are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestRun' that might handle related test operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a unit test must be run first, or how it relates to other test-related tools in the sibling list.

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