list_autotest_test_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, result volume, or whether an unknown autotest UUID yields an empty list or an error. For an open-world listing call, that is a real gap.

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?

It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than economy: a verbless sentence fragment that omits even the basic action. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 simple (one required param, full schema coverage, no output schema), and the fragment does implicitly convey the returned entity type, so an agent can probably call it correctly. Still, the absence of any usage context or return behavior leaves it barely sufficient rather than complete.

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 'id' parameter is documented as 'Autotest UUID', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'contain the autotest' is consistent with filtering by that UUID but adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The phrase 'Test runs that contain the autotest' names the resource (test runs) and the filter scope (autotest), which does differentiate it from siblings scoped to test plans or test points. However, it is a bare noun fragment with no verb, so it never explicitly states that the tool lists or returns these runs. The purpose is inferable but not stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_test_runs or search_test_runs. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the autotest-scoped variant of a test-run listing.

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