Get Test Run Results

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetches' implies a read, and the confirmation-testing framing is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about pagination (100 records/page, fetch_all_pages), the 10 req/s rate limit, or the default response trimming — all disclosed only in the schema text.

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 short sentences, purpose first and the most actionable hint second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 six-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns at a high level but omits paging behavior, response shape trimming, and rate-limit pressure — all left to the schema. Adequate, not self-sufficient.

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 schema already defines status, trim_response, page, and fetch_all_pages in detail. The description adds usage-level meaning for status ('pass FAILED to get only cases needing re-checking') but no format or syntax beyond the schema baseline.

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 the test cases in a test run alongside their latest result. That is clearly distinct from siblings like add_test_run_results or get_test_run_timeline, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from get_test_run_details, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 a concrete usage scenario (confirmation testing after a fix) and the exact call pattern that serves it (status='FAILED'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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