Xray Get Test Run

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 structurally. The description adds only 'in full detail' as behavioral context; it says nothing about pagination, permission requirements, or behavior when the id is unknown.

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 no filler; the detail enumeration and the two identification modes are packed efficiently with no wasted clauses.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to identify the resource and how to target it, both of which it does. Minor gap: it never clarifies that all three parameters are optional or that exactly one of the two modes must be supplied.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already state '(with test)' and '(with test_execution)'. The description restates the same id-or-(Test + Test Execution) pairing, adding no new syntax, format, or constraint detail. 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 (Get) and resource (one test run) and enumerates the detail returned (steps, evidence, defects, examples, iterations). It implicitly contrasts with the plural xray_get_test_runs via 'one test run', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives the two valid lookup modes (by id, or by Test + Test Execution), which is useful invocation context. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over xray_get_test_runs or xray_get_test_execution, and no exclusions.

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