get_tests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool retrieves tests for a test run and can filter by status, which is useful for understanding its behavior.

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, concise sentence that uses 13 words to convey the core purpose and optional filtering. No extraneous information is present, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 read tool with two parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the essential context (test run and optional filtering) but does not elaborate on return format or pagination, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only mirrors the schema by mentioning 'optionally filtered by status' without adding new meaning beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (Get) and resource (tests) within the context of a test run, and mentions optional filtering by status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cases or get_results, as it specifically targets tests associated with a run.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when retrieving tests for a specified test run, with optional status filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear given the sibling list.

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