get_test_results

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains the log is process-lifetime and in-memory, and that clear=true is a side-effecting option that both reports and resets state, returning a 'cleared' count. Disclosing the destructive reset semantics is exactly the context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and lifetime before the mechanics, and every sentence is functional. The inline enumeration of the return shape is somewhat verbose, especially since an output schema already exists, but it reads as intentional documentation rather than filler.

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 single-parameter aggregation tool this covers purpose, data source, lifetime, side effects, and usage trigger. With an output schema present it did not need to detail return values, yet the extra detail causes no harm and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does: 'clear=true to report the current roll-up AND reset it (adds cleared = how many were dropped)' fully defines the parameter's meaning, default behavior, and one extra return field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Aggregate the scenarios run in THIS MCP-server session natively.' It names the contributing tools (run_scenario / run_step / run_write_scenario_tool) and the scope boundary (process-lifetime), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from run_scenario and write_test_report.

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?

Gives clear context for use: 'Use it after a batch of scenarios to get a single pass/fail report instead of eyeballing each ScenarioResult.' That is a concrete trigger, but it does not name the sibling alternative (write_test_report) or state when NOT to call it, so routing between the two report tools is left to inference.

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