kiwi_get_test_executions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden; 'Search' signals a read-only operation and the query examples expose some behavior. It doesn't mention pagination, default behavior when query is empty, match semantics, or response scope, but these are less critical for a simple search tool.

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 entire definition is one front-loaded sentence with compact JSON examples and no filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

For a single flexible query parameter and no output schema, the examples give enough to start invoking, but the description omits response details, pagination, and query combination semantics. It is adequate but not fully 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 input schema only defines an opaque query object, so the common-key examples such as run, case, status__name, and tested_by__username add essential meaning. They don't exhaust all keys or value formats, but they compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses 'Search test executions (results)' with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies these are result records rather than test cases or runs. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough among the get_* tools.

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 the tool is for querying execution result records and gives common filter shapes, so an agent can infer the primary use case. It doesn't say when to prefer this over related tools like kiwi_get_execution_history or kiwi_get_run_cases, nor give exclusions.

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