get_executions_by_test

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes listing executions and defects but omits details on pagination (offset/max_records), sorting, limits, or read-only nature. Parameter explanation for 'test' is helpful, but overall behavioral traits are underdisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate context. No wasted words. Efficiently communicates core information.

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?

Given 3 parameters (one explained), no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is adequate but incomplete. Lacks pagination behavior, output format, error conditions, or differentiation from similar tools like 'list_executions_by_issue'.

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 has 0% coverage. Description explains the 'test' parameter (Jira issue key or id), adding meaning. However, 'max_records' and 'offset' are left unexploited; their defaults are not mentioned. With low coverage, partial compensation yields a 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists executions for a given test issue, including history and defects. The verb 'List' and resource 'executions' are specific. It adds a use case for auditing coverage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_executions_by_issue'.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use to flag tests that have never been executed (audit coverage).' This gives a clear scenario. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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