get_test_results

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists return content without mentioning side effects, authorization, rate limits, or error states. For a build-resolution tool, better transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence listing multiple return types is concise but slightly run-on. No structural issues, but could be clearer with bullet points.

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 4 parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation. Missing parameter guidance and return format details.

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?

0% schema description coverage means schema provides no parameter details. Description does not mention or clarify the meaning of buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, or buildSelector, leaving the agent blind on how to specify the build.

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?

Description states the tool returns build-level test summary, log paths, failed tests, and bundle metadata. While clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_failed_tests or get_build_logs, but the broader scope is implied.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_failed_tests or get_build_logs. No prerequisites or context provided.

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