openl Get Test Results Summary

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, which is vague. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or resource consumption beyond stating it returns a summary. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, the second gives a critical usage instruction. 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 has 4 parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and prerequisite adequately. It could elaborate on response format options or output examples, but the essential context is provided. The complexity is low, so the description is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds important context for projectId, specifying it must be the exact value from openl_list_projects() without modification. For other parameters, it mostly repeats schema info, so the added value is limited but meaningful for projectId.

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 retrieves a brief test execution summary without detailed test cases, explicitly listing the aggregated statistics (execution time, total tests, passed, failed). It differentiates from siblings like openl_get_test_results by specifying what is excluded.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use openl_start_project_tests() first to start test execution.' It implies when to use it (after test execution) and distinguishes from detailed test results, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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