Xray Get Test Progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. The description adds the aggregation-by-status behavior, but says nothing about pagination, the API-call cost of max_tests, or how test_plan vs test_execution scope interact (both appear optional) — useful context that is left to the schema. Adequate with annotations carrying the load, hence a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action, the target resources, and the aggregation key are all stated before the optional example. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains slightly under-specified is whether test_plan and test_execution are mutually exclusive or combinable and what happens when neither is supplied (all five params optional). For a read-only counting tool this is largely complete.

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% and every parameter has a substantive description (including the default ['FAILED'], the environment-with-test_plan coupling, and the one-call-per-100 cost), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely implies that test_plan or test_execution is the scope selector, adding no format or exclusivity detail beyond the schema. 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 precise verb ('Count') and resource ('Tests of a Test Plan or Test Execution') with the aggregation dimension ('per status'), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like xray_get_tests (list) and xray_get_test_runs (raw runs). An agent can distinguish its role without opening any schema.

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 phrase "e.g. to answer 'how far along is it?'" gives a clear motivating use case, implying progress/status reporting. However, it never states when to prefer this over xray_get_test_plans, xray_get_tests, or xray_get_test_runs, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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