get_test_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or output format. It doesn't mention if the tool requires specific access rights, how it handles invalid paths, or what the return structure looks like (e.g., JSON with the listed metrics). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that reads test results.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Read') and specifies the exact metrics retrieved. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error cases) and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for reliable agent invocation without additional inference.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented as 'Full path to the test run directory'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that the path leads to a RAMP test run. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or clarify parameter usage further.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('final result from a RAMP test run'), specifying the exact metrics retrieved (Gbps, kpps, klogps, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_test_vitals' or 'summarize_run' by focusing on final results rather than ongoing metrics or summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a test run must be completed), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'get_test_vitals' or 'summarize_run'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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