get-test-case-history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns runs across launches with specific data fields. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides, or whether results are sorted. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence clearly states the action and output, and the second provides a crucial clarification. 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields but not in full detail (e.g., data types or formats). It covers the essential distinction from edit logs but could elaborate on why to use this over siblings like get-test-case-overview or get-test-result-history. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (id, page, size). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters beyond the context that the tool retrieves run history for a test case. Following the guideline, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states it retrieves past runs of a test case across launches, listing specific fields (status, launch, duration, failure message). It distinguishes itself from edit logs and implicitly from sibling tools like get-test-case (current state) by clarifying it is a run history.

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 explicitly notes that this is a run history, not an edit log, and states that TestOps does not expose edit changes. This helps the agent avoid misusing the tool for edit history. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools, the negative guidance is clear and useful.

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