create_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool creates a test run and modifies state, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, reversibility, or destructive potential. This is insufficient for an agent to assess risk.

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 consists of two concise sentences without extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance is presented efficiently. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or behavior of omitted parameters. For a creation tool, an agent would need to know what the response contains and how to handle optional fields. The description is incomplete for reliable 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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only explains the 'include_all' and 'case_ids' parameters, leaving the other six parameters (name, refs, suite_id, project_id, description, milestone_id) completely undocumented. The description adds some value but fails to cover the majority of parameters.

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 that the tool creates a new test run, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It provides additional detail about default inclusion of all cases and scoping, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_run' or 'add_result', so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers guidance on parameter use (include_all and case_ids) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without critical decision-making information.

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