get_current_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 that front-loads the purpose and return details. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returns).

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, for a tool with potential complexity (e.g., interacting with tests/commands), it lacks details on error handling, data format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in context.

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 the single parameter 'test_id' as optional with its effect. The description adds minimal value by restating that omitting it returns the active test, aligning with the schema but not providing additional semantics beyond it.

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 ('commands of the current test'), specifying what information is returned (test name, ID, commands with targets/values). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_test_list' (lists tests) but not from 'get_test_by_name' (similar but by name vs ID).

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 by mentioning 'current test (or a specific test by ID)', suggesting it's for retrieving test details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_test_by_name' or 'get_command_list', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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