List test runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the parent-scoping constraint but does not disclose return format, pagination, or that parentType also supports 'release' and 'root' (it only mentions suite and cycle). This is a minor transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is direct.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but omits the full list of parentType enum values and the default behavior. It also gives no indication of the return structure, though the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description's instruction to 'Provide parentId and parentType' is redundant and slightly misleading because parentType is optional in the schema (default test-suite). It adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'test runs' and scope 'under a parent', clearly distinguishing it from singular get_test_run or add_test_runs. It also names the required context (parent suite/cycle).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to list test runs under a parent) by instructing to provide parentId and parentType. It does not explicitly name alternatives like qtest_get_test_run, but the context is evident from the sibling tool names.

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