Get Test Run Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is read-only ('Read') and that it computes metrics, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid path, unapproved report), return format, or whether it accesses external resources beyond the file. The 'approved' adjective adds some context but is vague.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Read an approved Playwright JSON report') and immediately enumerates the computed metrics. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the input (report path), the action (read), and the output (metrics). It could be improved by specifying that the metrics are returned in a structured format or mentioning any prerequisites, but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward reporting tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter description explicitly explains the path format and location ('relative to the approved reports directory, such as json/playwright-results.json'). The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, but with perfect schema coverage the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('Read an approved Playwright JSON report') and the intended outcome ('calculate pass, failure, skip, timeout, and flaky-test metrics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools: list_test_runs lists runs, analyze_test_failures focuses on failures, and generate_qa_summary generates a summary. The unique resource ('Playwright JSON report') and metric list make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you have an approved Playwright JSON report and need high-level metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings (e.g., list_test_runs for listing, analyze_test_failures for failure analysis) or provide any exclusion criteria. The 'approved' qualifier hints at a prerequisite but is not elaborated.

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