Run summary

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

Read-only and closed-world behavior is already covered by annotations. The description adds that results include every failure and skipped test, which hints at a potentially large payload, but it does not discuss size, pagination, or formatting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists exactly what the tool returns. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates returned data. It could say more about payload size or structure, but it covers the essential contents for this read-only summary tool.

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?

The single optional 'run' parameter has full schema coverage, including default behavior and accepted identifier formats. The description mentions only 'one run' and adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (one run) and enumerates the returned data: totals, pass rate, per-suite breakdown, every failure and skipped test. This clearly distinguishes it from trend, comparison, and flaky-test siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'for one run' implies the scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_pass_rate_trend, compare_runs, get_failure_clusters, or list_runs. An agent must infer usage from the content list alone.

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