unitTestOccurrenceMarkers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Retrieves', but doesn't disclose safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place but is arguably too sparse, missing opportunities to add valuable context in the same concise format.

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?

Despite having two parameters and no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the markers are, how url/source are used, or what response to expect. It is much less informative than the complexity of the tool warrants.

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 fully describes both parameters (url and source) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the retrieval, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action: 'Retrieves unit test occurrence markers.' It names a specific resource type, distinguishing it from broader unit test tools like unitTestRun and unitTestEvaluation, though it doesn't explain what 'occurrence markers' are.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The one-sentence description provides no usage context.

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