List test run results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that `run` mode is paginated at 100 per page, that `release` supports an optional status filter, and which parameters are required for each source. It does not mention return shape or authentication, but no destructive or surprising behavior is suggested.

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 compact and well-organized. The opening sentence states the core action, then a tight bullet list explains each mode without repetition or fluff. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

Given the four modes and eight parameters, the description covers all required parameter combinations, optional filters, pagination, and source selection semantics. The main gaps are the absence of return-value shape details and an explicit read-only statement, but these are secondary for a listing operation with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: it specifies which parameters must be combined for each `source`, which fields are optional, and that `run` paginates at 100 per page. This turns a flat parameter list into a usable mode-based decision matrix.

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 ('List test run results') and then disambiguates the four lookup modes via `source`. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_test_runs by describing result-level lookups and required key combinations.

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 explicitly maps each `source` value to its required and optional parameters, making it clear which mode to use and what to pass. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_test_runs, but the mode breakdown provides sufficient context for correct tool selection.

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