get_test_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return payload in detail (run_id, status, cases with subfields, severity_counts, etc.) and notes the 'summary-first fields' behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the verb 'Get' strongly implies this.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, usage guidance, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information without waste. The return field list is detailed but organized and necessary for the agent.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return structure, parameter origin, and relationship to sibling tools. It gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 schema only provides the parameter name 'run_id', but the description adds crucial context: 'run_id: The run_id returned from run_regression_test.' This tells the agent exactly where to obtain the value, going beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 structured results for a test run.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling run_release_check by noting it remains the 'detailed run-level payload' while release gating should use run_release_check.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer run_release_check + blop://release/{release_id}/brief for release gating.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the alternative. It also clarifies that this tool is for the detailed run-level payload.

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