QA story run detail

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

Description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by listing exact fields, including conditional Browserbase replay link. No contradictions; transparent about what is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with covered fields, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple fetch tool. Covers return fields and usage. Could mention error handling for non-existent runs, but not critical given simplicity.

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 both parameters clearly described. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches a single qa_story_run with specific fields (status, error_message, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_qa_story_runs by emphasizing 'drill into a specific failing run.'

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to drill into a failing run and understand errors before improving script or fixing app. Contextually implies alternatives like list_qa_story_runs for overview, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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