get_test_run

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get,' implying a read operation, but fails to note potential errors (e.g., 404 if runId is invalid), required permissions, or whether the response includes nested structures like test points. The lack of output schema amplifies this gap.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lacks output schema and annotations, yet it does not compensate by describing return fields (e.g., 'details include status, duration, and environment'). For a tool with two parameters and no structured output, the agent needs more context to interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions ('Project name' and 'Test run ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific test run,' so the value is neutral—baseline 3 without improvement.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific test run,' clearly defining the action (get) and resource (a single test run). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_test_runs (which retrieves multiple runs) and get_test_results (which focuses on test outcomes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it does not advise using get_test_run for run metadata versus get_test_results for individual test case outcomes, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a run ID from a previous search.

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