test_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool performs a read-only re-fetch of the most recent payload and does not re-execute tests, which clarifies its non-destructive nature. It also describes the canonical call shape and compatibility alias, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, a resource form, an ops list, and a canonical call shape example. Every section adds value with no redundancy, and the use of bullet formatting aids scanning.

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?

The tool is simple, with a single operation, and the description covers its behavior, parameters, and call shape. An output schema exists, so return values are implicitly covered. However, it does not mention edge cases such as behavior when no test run exists, which would make it fully 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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain parameters. It explains the verbose flag for results_get and describes the params structure via the canonical call shape, including the flat-parameter alias. However, it does not explain the session_id parameter, leaving a gap in full parameter understanding.

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 inspects test results by re-fetching the most recent test_run payload. It names the specific operation (results_get), the resource form (godot://test/results), and distinguishes itself from test execution by explicitly noting "no re-execution." This makes it distinct from sibling tools like test_run.

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 clear usage context by recommending "prefer for active-session reads" and noting it avoids re-execution, implying it is for inspecting prior results rather than running tests. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like test_run for execution, which would make the guidance more complete.

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