get_test_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes a full stack trace, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or what happens for a non-existent test.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and the notable return field front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the shape of the returned details beyond the stack trace. With two fully documented required params and no annotations, it is adequate but leaves gaps about the response.

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%, with runId and testName both documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics such as whether testName accepts fullName vs name ambiguity beyond the schema's own note.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get complete details for a single test') and adds the return highlight ('full stack trace'). However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_failures or list_runs, so an agent must infer the distinction from the singular 'single test'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_failures (which surfaces failing tests in bulk). The only signal is the implied 'single test' lookup, which is thin.

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