create_test_run

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context, only stating it creates a test run 'in a project'—which is more about scope than behavior. No additional details about auth, side effects, or data integrity are provided.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its basic function. It includes guidance on when to use an alternative tool. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or parameter constraints, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a test run in a project.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('test run'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'run_test_plan' by noting an alternative for bulk creation.

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 explicitly provides a usage guideline: 'For bulk creation from a plan, use run_test_plan instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and points to an alternative, which is excellent guidance.

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