list_test_runs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds value by specifying that it returns actual run instances by default, how to get template blueprints, and the use of Lucene query filters. It does not contradict 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding key distinctions. No superfluous words.

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?

The description covers main functionality and query syntax, but omits pagination behavior and sorting, which are important for a list tool. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but completeness is 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?

The description adds meaning for the 'templates' and 'query' parameters beyond the schema, but does not mention pagination parameters (page_size, page_number) which are present in the schema without descriptions. Overall, it adds marginal value.

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 'List / search test runs in a project', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes between listing actual runs and templates, and mentions filtering with Lucene queries. This differentiates it from sibling list tools for documents and work items.

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 provides context on when to use the templates flag but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_test_runs or other list tools). Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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