get_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the optional filter, which is parameter-related. This is acceptable given the annotations but not enhanced.

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 with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core meaning: the action, the resource, the scope, and the optional filter.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately scopes the operation and the optional filter. However, with no output schema, it does not describe return values or pagination, but this is not critical for such a simple tool.

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%, with both run_id and status_id fully described in the schema, including a reference to get_statuses for valid IDs. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'tests' and scoping 'for a test run', distinguishing it from siblings like get_cases or get_results. The optional status filter further clarifies the exact functionality.

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?

The description implies usage when needing tests for a test run, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but no alternatives are mentioned.

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