dbt-get-test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state idempotency, permissions, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context by listing what the response contains, but does not cover potential errors or cost implications.

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?

A single sentence of 11 words concisely conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word is informative and front-loaded, with no redundancy or extraneous details.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (definition, parameters, models, run result). It is complete enough for a 'get single entity' tool, though it could mention error handling or typical response structure.

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 coverage is 100% and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (uniqueId with example, extractFields with usage). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single dbt test, listing specific components returned (definition, parameters, attached models, latest run result). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and distinct resource 'single dbt test', differentiating it from sibling tools like dbt-list-tests (list) and dbt-failed-tests (subset).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dbt-list-tests for listing or dbt-failed-tests for failures. The description implies use for detailed retrieval of a specific test but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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