Search executions

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read-only nature of the operation. The description adds that filtering is possible by run, case, status, and assignee, consistent with read-only behavior. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result ordering or pagination, but the schema covers the limit parameter. This meets the baseline given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and highly efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

This is a simple filtered list operation with all parameters documented in the schema and a read-only annotation supplied. However, the description does not explain how this tool fits among the many sibling tools (e.g., when to search executions versus runs), nor does it mention the return format. Given the annotations and schema, it is minimally complete but lacks broader contextual guidance.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description merely mentions four of these parameters without adding any semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'TestExecution.filter by run, case, status, and assignee' clearly identifies a filtering operation on TestExecution resources and lists the filter dimensions. The title 'Search executions' reinforces the purpose. While it does not use the word 'list', 'filter' implies retrieval and distinguishes from siblings like kiwi_list_runs, which target runs rather than executions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiwi_list_runs or kiwi_run_get_cases. It does not mention exclusions or say 'use this when you need to search executions by specific criteria'. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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