testrail_get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about permission requirements, whether it errors on a nonexistent or deleted run, or what the response contains — all of which matter given there is no output schema.

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 padding and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful context rather than being a model of front-loaded structure.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter with a fully documented parameter, so minimal description is defensible. However, with no output schema the agent gets no indication of what a run object looks like or how failures surface, leaving a genuine gap.

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% and the single run_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that the ID identifies a test run.

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 run) with a scoping qualifier ('by ID'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling testrail_get_runs and the mutating siblings (add/update/close/delete_run). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives such as testrail_get_runs for listing or testrail_get_results_for_run for results. The single-retrieval intent is only inferable from the phrase 'a specific test run'.

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