get_results_for_run

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

No annotations provided, and the description only hints at read behavior. It does not disclose whether pagination applies (despite a limit parameter), rate limits, ordering, or data freshness. 'Includes comments, defects, who tested when' is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose and content. However, missing guidance on the limit parameter and lack of behavioral details (pagination, ordering) leave gaps. Adequate but not complete.

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 description adds meaning for 'run_id' by explaining it identifies a run, but it ignores the 'limit' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain how limit controls pagination or result size.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('results for a run'), and specifies what is included ('comments, defects, who tested when'). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_result or get_run, but does not explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools like get_tests_in_run.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent is not told which scenarios favor this over get_tests_in_run or get_run, nor any prerequisites or contextual advice.

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