Get TestRail Run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), which is clear, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the run_id is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The reference to 'get tests' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently references another tool for additional context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and points to related information, but as a read tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more on response behavior or error cases to be fully complete for agent use.

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%, with the single parameter 'run_id' well-documented in the schema as 'The ID of the test run'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Returns') and resource ('an existing test run'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_runs' (plural) or 'get_test', which could retrieve similar resources. The mention of 'get tests' is helpful but not a direct sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by referencing 'get tests' for related information, suggesting it's for retrieving a specific run's details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_runs' (for multiple runs) or 'get_test' (for individual tests), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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