add_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and a default behavior, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides a key default behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description offers minimal context. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, defaults beyond the one mentioned, or relationship to other entities (e.g., suites, cases). The tool is underspecified for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description adds one behavioral note about the interaction between case_ids and include_all, but does not explain the meaning or constraints of other parameters (project_id, name, suite_id, description, case_ids, include_all). Significant gap remains.

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 test run' which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds a conditional behavior about include_all defaulting to False when case_ids is provided. No sibling ambiguity as siblings are different actions.

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 when to use this tool (to create a test run) and provides a context-dependent default behavior. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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