get_test_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Gets' and adds context about the testing gate, but it does not disclose potential side effects, limitations (e.g., no results handling), or whether any state changes occur. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and resource, the second explains the key outcome. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the concept of a 'testing gate.' It does not detail return values or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to call it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning; it references 'worktree' but does not elaborate on include_output or any formatting/behavior. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Gets' with a clear resource: 'latest test and build results from a worktree.' It also adds outcome context ('Shows if the testing gate has been passed'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_e2e_tests (which runs tests) and get_workflow_status (broader status).

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?

Usage is implied: use this to check test/build results and gate status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any comparison to alternatives like verify_build or get_workflow_status. The context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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