Get TestRail Runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which hints at functionality, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the return format (e.g., structure of the list). For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of test runs for a project') and adds key constraints ('with optional filtering and pagination. Only returns test runs that are not part of a test plan.'). Every part earns its place without redundancy or waste.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a key constraint (excludes test plan runs), but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage nuances. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like created_after, limit, and offset, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Get a list of') and resource ('test runs for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from 'get_run' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple runs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'get_cases' or 'get_tests' beyond the resource type.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Only returns test runs that are not part of a test plan,' which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'get_run' (for a single run) or other filtering tools, nor does it state any prerequisites beyond the required project_id.

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