Xray Get Expanded Test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing that Call Test steps are flattened/expanded, which changes the shape of the returned step list. It stops short of noting any recursion depth, performance, or unresolvable-reference caveats.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, front-loading the resource and the one behavior that matters. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations plus a fully-described schema cover the rest. The only gap is the lack of routing guidance versus xray_get_test, which would make this a standalone definition.

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%: test, fields, and version_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how fields interacts with the expanded steps), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Test) with a distinguishing behavioral detail: 'Call Test' steps are expanded inline into the called tests' steps. That expansion is exactly what separates this from the sibling xray_get_test, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the expansion behavior – an agent can infer 'use this when you want Call Test steps resolved', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to xray_get_test as the non-expanded alternative.

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