getTest

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the retrieval affects system state. The description only restates the function without deeper behavioral context.

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 concise with two sentences (English and Japanese). There is no fluff, though the Japanese is redundant. The key information is front-loaded in English.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention possible return format, error conditions, or relationship to other test entities.

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% (one parameter with description). The description adds value by specifying that the tool retrieves 'complete details' including 'status, type, and results', which goes beyond the schema's minimal field name.

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 'Retrieves complete details for a single test', specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'getTests' and 'getResults', and the examples of included fields (status, type, results) further clarify scope.

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 or avoid this tool. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of alternatives or context like 'use getTests for multiple tests'.

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