Get test run metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the enumerated outputs make clear this is a read-only metadata retrieval, and it adds useful context about the numeric status IDs being used by bulk update endpoints. It does not discuss auth, response shape, or error conditions, but for a simple read operation the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then explains the optional extension. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has low complexity: one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers what is returned, the relevant use case, and the parameter's effect, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% and the single optional parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description reinforces the conditional behavior: passing projectKey also fetches assignable users. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining the effect of including the parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves available test run statuses, including names and numeric IDs used by bulk update endpoints. This clearly distinguishes it from get_test_run (which returns run details) and list_test_runs (which lists runs). It also reveals the optional assignable-users behavior tied to projectKey.

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 gives clear context: use it to obtain test run statuses, especially the numeric IDs needed for bulk update endpoints. It also explains the conditional use of projectKey to fetch assignable users. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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