Get RCA Generation Progress and Results

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

Discloses read-only nature, describes edge case behavior (empty scope returns all-zero counts with explanatory message), and explains include_detail behavior. Without annotations, this fully covers behavioral aspects.

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 detailed but each sentence contributes value. It front-loads purpose and uses paragraph breaks for clarity. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is effective.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, edge cases, and distinctions from siblings. No evident gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains scope parameters (types, caps, at-least-one requirement), include_detail (hydrate vs brief), and limit/offset pagination. Adds essential 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 specifies the tool returns a progress summary and paginated RCA results, clearly distinguishing it as the polling counterpart to tm.generate_testExecutionRCA. It mentions specific counts and scope, avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after calling tm.generate_testExecutionRCA for asynchronous polling. It notes the same scope as sibling tools, warns it does not trigger generation, and highlights pagination differences from tm.get_testExecutionRCA.

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