get_build_test_report

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a safe read operation, so the description aligns with it. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details, such as what happens if the build has no test report or if the build does not exist.

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 very short, consisting of a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but could be criticized for being too minimal, though it does not contain redundancies.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the test report contains or its structure. It does not, nor does it explain the meaning of the input parameters, making the tool's usage unclear.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description also fails to explain what 'fullname' or 'number' represent, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and proper usage.

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 it retrieves a test report for a specific build, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_build' or 'get_build_scripts', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 the build must exist or how the test report is generated, and does not mention when not to use this tool.

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