get_test_runs_for_build

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states a simple 'Get' operation without indicating relevant details such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond obvious purpose.

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?

Single sentence without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, the description should convey what the output contains. It does not mention response format, pagination, or any additional context. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness.

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 'project' and 'buildId' described. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it's a baseline score since the schema already explanations the parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'test runs', clearly scoping to 'associated with a specific build'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_test_run' (singular) and 'list_test_runs' (all runs without build filter).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_test_run' (singular) and 'list_test_runs' (all runs) exist but are not mentioned. The description does not provide any exclusion criteria or context about when not to use this tool.

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