Get Test Run Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 10 requests/second rate limit, that only one run is fetched per call, and a detailed null-semantics caveat for firstResultAt/lastResultAt/durationInMinutes including the ambiguity that null means unknown rather than 'no results yet'. This is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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-loaded with purpose and the field list, then bullets for timing fields, with usage guidance and caveats ordered sensibly. Slightly bloated in the caveat section, where the aside about a run that 'still returned real timestamps' is an anecdote that muddies the otherwise crisp null rule.

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?

No output schema exists, so the explicit enumeration of returned metadata and timing fields is necessary and present. Combined with the null caveat, rate limit, and single-run constraint, an agent has everything needed to call this, interpret the response, and avoid misreading nulls.

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% and the test_run parameter already documents that a UUID is required, that a key like 'R-2' is rejected, and how to resolve it via list_test_runs(filter_key=...). The description adds only that 'the endpoint takes one test run per call', so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('fetches a test run's details') and enumerates exactly what comes back, including the three timing fields that motivate the tool. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_test_run_results by calling this 'the direct way' versus deriving timing from per-case resultHistory.

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 concrete triggering questions ('when did this run finish', 'how long did execution take') and names the slower alternative with the reason to avoid it. It also states the precondition to check results before concluding from nulls, which is exactly the decision the agent needs to make after calling.

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