Xray Get Test Executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are paginated, which is useful context, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema 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?

The description is a single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the search action, the resource, and the accepted query forms. It is appropriately sized for a paginated list tool whose parameters and return shape are defined elsewhere.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that cover the operation's safety profile, the description provides enough orientation to call the tool correctly. It could be improved by explicitly differentiating from the singular retrieval sibling or mentioning filtering options like modified_since, but it is complete enough for a straightforward search endpoint.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions JQL, keys, and project, which maps to a subset of parameters, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Test Executions'), and lists the primary query modes (JQL, keys, project) plus pagination. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling xray_get_test_execution or other list tools.

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 implies usage for bulk search and filtering by JQL, keys, or project, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives to compare against siblings. The context is clear enough to infer a list/search operation, but guidance is minimal.

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