get_test_runs_for_build

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'Get test runs' and doesn't mention what a successful call returns (e.g., array, null), pagination, error behavior, or permission requirements. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but lacks depth.

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 with no redundant words; efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool is minimal: no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description. It doesn't describe return payload, edge cases (e.g., missing buildId), or how project affects results, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('Build ID', 'Project name'), and the description adds no extra meaning. Since coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't clarify how buildId is used or when project is needed.

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 clearly states 'Get test runs associated with a specific build' — a specific verb (get), resource (test runs), and scope (associated with a build), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_test_runs (all runs) and get_test_run (single 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_test_runs or get_test_run; the description only names the function without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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