get_test_run_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed Test Run information' from a 'Public API', implying a read-only operation, but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the nature of the returned data (e.g., structured vs. raw). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence, using an emoji for visual emphasis. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating key details (e.g., 'Retrieves detailed Test Run data by ID from the Public API. Supports project aliases and output formatting.'), keeping it efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how the output varies by 'format', or potential side effects like API rate limits. For a tool interacting with an external API and returning unspecified data, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the 'id' parameter is for a Test Run, but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'project' or 'format' choices. Since the schema already documents all parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 the action ('Get detailed Test Run information') and resource ('by ID from Public API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_launch_details' or 'get_test_case_by_key', which also retrieve specific entities by identifier, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Test Run ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_test_runs' for browsing or other 'get_*' tools for different entity types, leaving usage context unclear.

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