create_test_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It describes the parameters and their meanings but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. The 'creates' verb implies writing, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by an organized list of parameter explanations. While concise, it could be slightly more compact by integrating some parameter details. No wasted words, but the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers all parameters adequately but lacks information about the return value of the created test run, error handling, permissions, or any side effects. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, some additional context would be beneficial for full completeness.

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?

The description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including constraints like 'One of ALL or SPECIFIC' for test_case_inclusion_type, and format requirements for deadline (YYYY-MM-DD). This adds significant value since the schema only contains titles, with 0% description coverage.

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 'Creates a new test run in a project,' specifying the verb (creates), resource (test run), and scope (in a project). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools list_projects and list_test_runs, which are for listing.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly implies use for creation, but lacks guidance on when not to use or any exclusions. The parameter explanations provide some context but not usage boundaries.

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