get_test_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the results,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what happens if no test run has occurred, or what format the results take. This is a minimal disclosure with significant gaps.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently adds the qualifier 'last automation test run,' which provides specificity beyond the tool name without any 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for selecting the tool but lacks detail about the return value structure, potential errors (e.g., 'no run has occurred'), or whether results include pass/fail, timings, or logs. It does not fully explain the output, which is not covered by an output schema.

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 empty schema fully documents the inputs. Per the rubric, 0 parameters automatically earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter information because there are no parameters to explain.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names a precise resource in 'results of the last automation test run.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_automation_test and run_all_automation_tests, which execute tests rather than retrieve 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 context implies the tool is used after an automation test run to fetch its results, and it is naturally distinct from the run-* siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mentioning that it only returns the most recent run or that other tools might provide more detailed queries.

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