Get Test Results

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool shows past executions with status and pass/fail counts, which is useful behavioral context, and notes the requirement for project context. No contradiction with annotations, but it doesn't go deeper into pagination or response structure.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the key output (status and counts), making it easy for an agent to quickly parse. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should give a clearer picture of the return format beyond just 'status and pass/fail counts'. It omits details like the structure of each run entry, ordering, or how pagination parameters affect the result. It also doesn't explain what 'project context' means or how it relates to the required testSuiteId. These gaps make it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the response or prerequisites.

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%, so all three parameters (testSuiteId, skip, take) are already documented in the schema with clear meanings and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it also doesn't reinforce the pagination behavior.

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 verb (Get), the resource (test run history), and the scope (for a test suite), plus what is returned (status and pass/fail counts). It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like get_test_run (which likely returns a single run) by focusing on history, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_test_run or export_test_run. The only contextual hint is 'Requires project context', which is a prerequisite but not a usage comparison. An agent must infer from the tool name and description alone when to choose this over similar tools.

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