addRun

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

The description only states that the tool creates a test run, without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions required, or side effects. With no annotations present, this is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, clear and direct. The inclusion of a Japanese translation adds minor redundancy but does not harm clarity. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, success/failure signals, or constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the existing schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic insight beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Creates'), the resource ('a new test run'), and the context ('in a TestRail project'), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addCase or addPlan by specifying 'test run'.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addRunToPlanEntry or updateRun. The description offers no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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