list_test_runs

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default values but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss authorization, rate limits, or pagination. For a list operation, this is a 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?

Two concise sentences plus a clear list of arguments. No extraneous information, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage strategy, which slightly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains each parameter: project default, top maximum, state filter with examples. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more precise about the project default interpretation.

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?

Clearly states 'List test runs in a project', which identifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_test_run_results, but the distinction is implicit from the name and description.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_run_results or other list tools. It does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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