get_test_report

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

The description explains the process (takes manual results and combines with plan to produce report) without mentioning any side effects or modifications. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive.

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?

Description is concise with three short paragraphs and bullet points for usage. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to scan.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description adequately explains the process and what the report contains (score, verdict, recommendations). It could be more explicit about the return format, but it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the parameters (e.g., manual results) but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Description states it re-generates a structured test report from manual results and the original plan, clearly specifying the resource (test report) and action (re-generate). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'create_test_plan' by focusing on manual 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 lists three use cases: when tests are MANUAL_REQUIRED, when user ran Fix Scripts manually, and when a clean summary of mixed results is needed. This provides clear context for when to use the tool.

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