List Test History

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

Without annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it lists the return fields but does not disclose pagination, sorting order, or whether only completed runs are returned. It does not mention any side effects, but for a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise (two sentences) and efficiently conveys purpose and output content. No redundant or filler information.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (summaries with specific fields) and the filters. Could mention limit default or sorting, but overall adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional filters' and lists the workspaceId and status implicitly, but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. No additional parameter context provided.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a list of past test runs. It specifies the resource (past test runs) and the action (retrieve with optional filters). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run-test' and 'get-test-run-details' by focusing on listing historical runs.

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. For example, no mention of when to prefer 'get-test-run-details' for detailed info or 'run-test' for new runs. No hints about prerequisites or context.

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