vunit_get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'no re-run' and 're-read', making the read-only nature explicit. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it reads from the output dir, returns per-test status, and conditionally includes failing-check counts. This is valuable context without contradicting the annotations.

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 the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds return semantics and a cross-reference to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns, and how to follow up on failures. The output schema explains return structure, so not describing it here is appropriate. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to add. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead of inventing parameter details.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-read the last run's JUnit report from the output dir'. The phrase 'no re-run' explicitly differentiates it from vunit_run_tests. It also specifies the return content (per-test status and failing checks), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context for when to use this tool (after a run, to inspect results without re-running) and points to the alternative vunit_get_test_log for deeper investigation of a specific failing test. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X' for all siblings, the pointer to the log tool and the emphasis on no re-run give sufficient guidance for routing.

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