testrail_get_results_for_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read. It says nothing about pagination, whether results are capped, ordering, or the effect of the limit parameter, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or volume.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key scope ('for a test run') front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying behavior.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain the returned result shape and pagination, but it does not. For a retrieval tool with a limit parameter, this leaves the agent unable to anticipate what comes back.

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 both run_id and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (test results) scoped to a test run, which implicitly separates it from testrail_get_results_for_case. However, it largely restates the tool name and never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus testrail_get_results, testrail_get_results_for_case, or testrail_get_run. The agent must infer routing from the name alone, with no stated conditions or exclusions.

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