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. However, it only says 'get the results' with no mention of side effects, permissions, or what happens if no test has run. It implicitly implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state any absence of side effects or error conditions. For a getter, this is thin.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It perfectly captures the tool's function without wasted words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context such as what 'results' include (e.g., pass/fail counts, logs), whether the tool is read-only or triggers any side effects, and how it relates to the various automation test runner siblings. For a getter with zero params, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 tool has zero parametersyears, so the input schema is complete with no undeclared parameters. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4 since there is no missing parameter documentation.

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 specifies the action (get) and the resource (results of the last automation test run). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'run_automation_tests_by_category' or 'list_automation_tests' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution or listing. However, it could be slightly more specific about what constitutes a 'test run' (e.g., single test or suite), so not a perfect 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply restates the tool's name. There is no mention of needing to run tests first or any context where this should be preferred over other getters.

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