get_test_run_states_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds the semantic meaning of the returned values (lifecycle stages with examples), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the list is static.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, but the first two sentences are redundant ('Get all test run states. Retrieve all available test run states.') and one of them should have been cut. The third sentence earns its place by defining the resource.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: what a 'test run state' actually is, with concrete examples. Adequate for a simple enum-collection endpoint.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (test run states) and defines what the resource means ('lifecycle stages a test run can be in, such as open, in progress or closed'). This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_test_result_states_collection, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the tool is a trivial enumeration-returning GET, so the intended usage (fetch the valid state vocabulary for test runs) is strongly implied by the description's definition of the resource.

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