Get a test run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes 'latest status,' which is useful return-value context, but it does not disclose error conditions, pagination, or whether the status is computed fresh. This is adequate but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with readOnlyHint and two well-documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the return includes the latest status, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by this hint. It could be more explicit about what fields are returned, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage: both projectId and testRunId are described with clear types. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 says 'Fetch a single test run by ID, including its latest status,' which uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource (a single test run by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qtest_list_test_runs by focusing on a single item rather than a list.

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 retrieving one specific test run when you have its ID, contrasting with qtest_list_test_runs for listing multiple runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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