Summarize test reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly noting that the tool will not return testcase logs or captured output, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also scopes the tool to 'local' reports, providing additional context about its operational boundary.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Summarize local JUnit XML reports') and includes one clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 simple read-only tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and constraints. It does not detail the summary format, but that is not critical given the tool's straightforward nature. It is slightly less complete than ideal because it does not reference alternatives or provide any edge-case guidance.

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%, with both repositoryRoot and reportFiles already fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Summarize local JUnit XML reports' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it does not return testcase logs or captured output, which is not present in sibling tool names (inspect_release_changes, build_release_evidence_pack).

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 implies the usage context (local JUnit XML reports) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any exclusions. It does not mention 'use this instead of build_release_evidence_pack', so usage is implied rather than stated.

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