get_test_run

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: immutability (no PUT, items fixed at creation, status derived from item statuses), the internal-API auth flag required for mutation routes, and a non-obvious id-space caveat for items[].id. This is behavior far beyond anything the annotations provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the immutability constraint, escape hatches, sibling alternatives, and the item-id warning. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph could be broken up for faster scanning.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description both sketches the return shape (key, name, status, owner, folder, items, or the filtered fields) and warns about the volatile items[].id. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of returning 'only the requested fields' largely restates the schema. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one test run / test cycle including its items') plus the underlying endpoint GET /testrun/{key}. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by naming get_test_run_results and get_test_run_summary as the tools for executions and status counts respectively.

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 routes the agent to alternatives: get_test_run_results for executions, get_test_run_summary for status counts, and the immutability escape hatches (recreate_test_run_with_items, or the internal-API tools gated behind ZEPHYR_ALLOW_INTERNAL_API=true). Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered.

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