get_test_by_name

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 states the tool retrieves a test 'including all commands,' which hints at read-only behavior and data inclusion, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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: 'Get a specific test by its name, including all commands.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail (commands inclusion) without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data inclusion but lacks guidance on usage, behavioral traits, and output details. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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, with the parameter 'test_name' documented as 'The name of the test to retrieve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific test by its name, including all commands.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('test'), and scope ('by its name, including all commands'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_list' or 'get_current_test', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_test_list' (for listing tests) or 'get_current_test' (which might retrieve a different test context), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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