getTestRunTestParameterDefinition

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It indicates a read operation ('Returns') and is minimally sufficient. However, it omits details like required permissions, response format, or potential side effects. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not enriched transparency.

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 (16 words) that immediately conveys the core functionality. No unnecessary words or redundant information. Every word serves the purpose. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value or how to use the 'fields' or 'include' parameters. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected output, especially without output schema.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify relationships or constraints. The agent can rely on the schema, so no deduction, but also no added value.

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 that the tool returns a specific Test Parameter Definition for a specified Test Run. The verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'Test Parameter Definition' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getTestRunTestParameterDefinitions' (plural) and 'getTestRunTestParameter' (different entity).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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