Get Test Results By Table

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a filtered summary and supports pagination. The annotation openWorldHint indicates possible external interactions, but the description does not contradict annotations. It could mention if the tool has side effects, but given read-only nature implied by description, this is sufficient.

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: first states the purpose, second explains what it returns and pagination, third gives a usage prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, pagination, and a critical prerequisite. For a tool with 10 parameters, it could mention that it returns a summary with failure information, but the schema covers parameter details. No output schema exists, so description does not need to detail return structure beyond stating it returns a filtered summary.

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 the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It mentions pagination support, which is already in schema. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 gets test execution results filtered by a specific table ID, using verb 'Get' and resource 'test execution results' with the filter detail. It distinguishes from siblings like openl_get_test_results (likely unfiltered) and openl_get_test_results_summary (summary without table filter).

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite: 'Use openl_start_project_tests() first to start test execution.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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