get_test_run

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns full details and supports a relations parameter for including associated data, which is useful but not deep behavioral context beyond 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 short and front-loads the core purpose before elaborating on returned details and the relations parameter. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences but no wasted prose.

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 simple get-by-ID endpoint with annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential purpose and mentions the relations parameter. However, with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it could better explain what 'relations' includes and what the response structure looks like, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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% for the single nested parameter, so the description partially compensates by mentioning the unique identifier and the relations parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the identifier format beyond 'unique identifier' and doesn't enumerate what relations values are valid, leaving gaps.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get a specific test run... using its unique identifier') and enumerates the returned fields (name, environment, state, custom fields). It is clear and specific but does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_test_run_collection or get_my_test_run_collection, which would require stating that this fetches a single run by ID.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of the unique identifier and the relations parameter, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus get_test_run_collection or other retrieval endpoints, nor any stated prerequisites.

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