get_test_run

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what 'detailed information' includes, whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), error behavior, or any required permissions. It adds no meaningful context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose without any fluff. It is concise and appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the returned 'detailed information' contains and how it differs from related tools like get_test_results. It does not, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity about the expected response structure and scope.

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% with both parameters (runId and project) described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'detailed information about a specific test run', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_test_runs (which lists runs) and get_test_results (which retrieves results). It effectively communicates that this tool returns the full details of a single test run.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_results or get_test_runs_for_build. The description only restates the function without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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