openl Get Test Results By Table

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=true. The description adds the prerequisite for test execution but does not disclose safety profile (e.g., read-only vs mutation), rate limits, or error behavior. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes key usage context. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, making it highly concise and 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?

Without an output schema, the description lacks detail on the return structure. It mentions 'test execution summary' but does not elaborate on fields. Pagination details are implied but not fully explained. However, the schema covers parameter constraints.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about pagination support and response format, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'test execution results filtered by specific table ID', and explains the output ('only test cases for the specified table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the table filter and pagination support.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Use openl_start_project_tests() first'), which guides when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, missing some context for choosing between siblings.

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