Get Test Results Summary

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

The description explains the tool's behavior: it returns aggregated statistics without testCases array. This adds context beyond the openWorldHint annotation, which merely hints at read-only. The description clarifies the output scope.

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 incredibly concise: two sentences covering purpose and prerequisite. No extraneous words, every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the key points: what it returns and the prerequisite. It could mention error states (e.g., if no tests started) but overall is sufficiently complete.

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?

While the input schema fully describes parameters (100% coverage), the description adds value by providing usage context for 'projectId' (exact value from openl_list_projects()) and summarizing response_format options. This aids correct invocation.

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 brief test execution summary without detailed test cases.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (test execution summary), and what it returns (aggregated statistics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_get_test_results.

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 states a prerequisite: 'Use openl_start_project_tests() first to start test execution.' It implies when to use this tool (for summary) versus others for detailed results, but does not explicitly exclude using it when detailed cases are needed.

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