aitest_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a comprehensive test report for finished jobs, including specific details. No mention of side effects, but as a read operation, it is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists contents. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple 1-param tool. It covers what the tool returns and its prerequisite (finished job). Could mention that the job must exist, but overall sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter job_id with 100% schema coverage. The schema already describes it as 'The job ID returned by aitest_run.' The description adds context about the report contents but not about the parameter itself, meeting the baseline.

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 'Get the complete test report for a finished job,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings (aitest_run and aitest_status) by focusing on completed jobs and detailed results.

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 implies usage for finished jobs and lists report contents (step-by-step results, pass/fail summary, etc.), making it clear when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No explicit exclusions but context is sufficient.

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