Get Test Run Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what is returned: full test results, error messages, stack traces, and coverage data. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, but the context suggests no side effects. Additional detail on rate limits or permissions would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the purpose. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is complete. It covers the what, the inputs, and the use cases adequately.

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% with one parameter 'historyId' and a description. The tool description adds context ('returned by run-test'), which clarifies where the ID comes from, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and this extra context earns a 4.

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 specifies the verb 'Retrieve complete details' and the resource 'historical test run by history ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-test-history (which lists runs) and run-test (creates runs) by focusing on historical detail retrieval.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'comparing test results across iterations, reviewing past failures, or analyzing coverage progression.' It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like list-test-history for simpler listing.

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