list_test_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List test runs' without disclosing return format, ordering, pagination, or the fact that project and buildUri are optional filters. The statement 'for a project' contradicts the schema where project is optional, creating ambiguity about the default scope.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While this is a simple list tool, the description is incomplete in explaining optional filters and default behavior. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the agent must infer return structure and behavior. The ambiguity about 'for a project' when project is optional further reduces 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'project' is a scope. No extra semantics for 'top' or 'buildUri' are provided.

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 the tool lists test runs for a project, using a specific verb and resource. It identifies the use case (finding test execution history) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_test_runs_for_build, which also lists test runs but filtered by build.

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?

It implies the tool is useful for viewing test execution history, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_test_runs_for_build or get_test_results. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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