get_atf_suite_result

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already communicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what the return value contains or any potential side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. However, it does not specify the nature of the returned 'results', which would be helpful given the absence of 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 input schema provides a complete description for the single parameter (result_sys_id as 'System ID of the suite result record'), leaving no ambiguity. The tool description does not add extra meaning, so a baseline score 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 tool retrieves results of a test suite run, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_atf_suite' or 'list_atf_test_results', which could cause ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or provide context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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