get_test_results

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses build must be terminal, artifact search behavior, skip logic with artifact_url, output summary structure (pass/fail/error/skip with failure details), and prerequisite of test_report glob. Lacks mention of error handling if no JUnit found, but broadly informative.

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 paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words, but could be more structured with line breaks for readability. Efficient but not maximally structured.

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 complexity (no output schema), description covers input requirements, behavioral constraints (terminal state), output summary, platform scope, and prerequisite. Lacks details on exact output format or error cases, but is comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining artifact_url's purpose (skip search, use from wait_for_build) and how it relates to the workflow. This goes beyond the schema's raw 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 clearly states the tool fetches and parses test results from a Codemagic build, specifying the verb (fetch, parse), resource (test results from build), and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build or get_build_logs by focusing on JUnit XML parsing. It covers multiple platforms and mentions optional artifact URL shortcut.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: after build reaches terminal state, can use artifact_url from wait_for_build, requires codemagic.yaml with test_report glob. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the information is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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