get_test_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (return metadata and URLs) but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what if build not found), or whether the operation is destructive. The description only gives high-level purpose without essential behavioral details.

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, 16 words, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve.' However, given the complexity of 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. It could be slightly longer to add parameter guidance without being verbose.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 15 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not specify inputs, output format, constraints, or usage context. For a tool that resolves builds and returns artifacts, important details like required parameter combinations, download URL structure, and metadata fields are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain how they identify the build. It does not clarify the role of buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, or buildSelector, nor does it explain the enum values for buildSelector. An agent cannot infer how to construct input.

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 resolves a build and returns metadata and download URLs for UI test artifacts and result bundles. The verb 'resolve' and 'return' combined with the specific resource (UI test artifacts and result bundles) gives a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_test_results or get_build_logs, which could also return test-related data.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage when needing test artifacts from a build, but there are many sibling tools with overlapping functionality (e.g., get_build_logs, get_test_results) and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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