alm_create_test_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions it creates a manual test run record and lists parameters. It does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or potential conflicts (e.g., whether a run already exists for the instance).

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 structured with an Args block and concise parameter explanations. It is not overly long but could be slightly more compact by removing the 'Args:' header if not necessary.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters and return value adequately. However, it lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., must test instance exist), or relationship to other tools.

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%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter's meaning. For example, it clarifies that status can be 'Not Completed', 'Passed', etc., and that peer_reviewer maps to a specific field.

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 'Create a manual test run record for an existing test instance.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like alm_execute_test or alm_update_run_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alm_execute_test for executing runs, alm_update_run_status for updating). The description only explains what it does, not the context of use.

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