alm_execute_test

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

The description discloses the steps involved (finds instance, creates run, updates status and steps), which is helpful. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or whether a new run is always created. Given no annotations, more detail on behavioral traits would be beneficial.

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 concise, with a short intro, a bullet list of high-level steps, and structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the composite operation, all parameters, and return format. It positions the tool among siblings. Missing some context on prerequisites or error conditions, but given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably 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 provides an Args section with clear explanations for each parameter, including status values and optional fields. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond just names and types.

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 the tool performs 'full end-to-end test execution' in a single call, listing specific steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a composite operation, unlike more granular tools like alm_create_test_run 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?

The description explicitly says 'This is the primary tool for recording automation results in ALM,' providing clear context for when to use it. While it does not list specific alternatives or when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its primary role.

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