test_result

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only fetch and specifies the source of test ids, but it doesn't describe error handling, authorization, or the return format. This is a moderate gap for a fetch operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. However, the second fragment 'service: a site alias | service_id' is cryptic and introduces confusion, so it's not as polished as ideal.

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 simple two-parameter fetch, the description covers the core usage and id provenance, but without an output schema it leaves return-value semantics and error behavior undocumented. This is adequate yet has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify both parameters. It explains that 'service' is a site alias, but the trailing 'service_id' is ambiguous and not a declared parameter. The test_id is only implied as 'by id', which is insufficient given no schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Fetch one test's current status/result by id', a specific verb+object that clearly distinguishes this from sibling test_history (listing tests) and run_diagnostic (launching tests). The parenthetical about the id source reinforces the tool's unique role.

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?

It provides clear context by noting the id comes from test_history or a wait=False run, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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