Test run status summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read operation, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the stats include (breakdown by status and failed executions), but doesn't detail return format or any potential limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it uses internal jargon ('TestRun.filter', 'TestExecution') that may not be transparent. It is front-loaded with 'Aggregated run stats' which conveys the core purpose, making it efficient though slightly cryptic.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main output (aggregated stats with status breakdown and failed executions). However, it lacks detail on the exact response structure or how data is grouped, which could be relevant for an agent. It is minimal but adequate.

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 covers run_id with a clear description ('Test run id'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies with high schema coverage. The tool's single parameter is straightforward.

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 indicates the tool provides aggregated run statistics including status breakdown and failed executions. However, it's phrased as a noun phrase ('Aggregated run stats') rather than an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', slightly reducing action clarity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kiwi_list_executions by focusing on aggregated summary.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions TestRun.filter and TestExecution breakdown, but doesn't state that this should be used for summary statistics while kiwi_list_executions provides detailed execution data. Missing explicit usage context.

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