Test runs grouped by suite

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

Annotations indicate read-only; description adds that it surfaces coverage/health and lists failing suites, providing useful 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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action, though slightly dense with detail.

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 aggregation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what is returned, though parameter documentation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter 'project' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or that it is a required filter.

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 it organizes test runs by suite with aggregated metrics like latest result, count, pass/fail, and pass-rate, distinguishing it from 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?

It implies use for suite-level aggregation instead of a flat list, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings like 'get_test_runs'.

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