robot_parse_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Parse... and return' signals a read-only analysis operation and states the shape of the result, but it does not mention error behavior, workspace requirements, or side effects (even though side effects are unlikely).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: the verb, subject, and output are all stated directly.

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 and has an output schema, so return format does not need to be explained. However, the missing workspace semantics and lack of usage guidance leave a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that output_xml refers to an output.xml file, but it says nothing about the workspace parameter, leaving half of the parameters under-documented.

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 names a specific verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('output.xml'), and the return content ('compact test statistics and failure messages'). This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like robot_run, robot_list_tests, or robot_dry_run, which have clearly different verbs and purposes.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling, or when not to use it. It implies post-run analysis of a Robot Framework output file, but the agent is left to infer that from the name and siblings.

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