get_test_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is 'read-only' and mentions pagination behavior for include_results. However, it does not cover potential error conditions, authentication needs, or what happens if the run is not found.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and a key parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on most parameters, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 must compensate. It only explains the semantics of include_results (pagination). Other parameters like results_page, result_status, and test_cases are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 'Get one test run by id', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions an optional parameter (include_results) with its behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_test_runs (which lists multiple runs) and get_test_case (different resource).

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 when to use include_results for paginated results, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_test_runs. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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