Test runs grouped by suite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it provides aggregated data per suite and the list of failing suites, giving additional behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences: the first explains the output details, the second states the benefit. No redundant words, information is front-loaded.

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?

The description lists the output elements (latest result, run count, etc.) which compensates for the lack of output schema. It does not address edge cases like suites with no runs, but is otherwise complete for a simple input.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'project' parameter beyond implying it's the scope for grouping. The agent must infer its meaning from context.

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 states that it organizes test runs by suite and provides per-suite summaries (latest result, run count, pass/fail, pass-rate, failing suites). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_test_runs by noting 'instead of a flat list'.

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 implicitly contrasts with a flat list (get_test_runs) and mentions it surfaces per-suite health, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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