Get Test Execution Data with AI Insights

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only nature, pagination mechanics (cursor/limit, max 500), sorting options, date range defaults and constraints (last 7 days default, must provide both timestamps, max 31 days), and filter ID count cap (100 total). No annotation contradiction.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing parameters and constraints. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping related constraints. Still, it avoids fluff.

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 complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description is very comprehensive, covering pagination, sorting, filtering constraints, date behavior, and distinguishing from siblings. It lacks explicit mention of the response format, but the listed fields give a good picture. Overall highly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all 11 parameters. It explains limit maximum, cursor pagination, filter arrays, sort_by/sort_order enums, and crucially details date parameter constraints (RFC3339 UTC, required together, max span). It also adds undocumented constraints like the total ID count cap.

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 it retrieves paginated test execution records enriched with AI insights, listing many specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tm.get_testExecutionRCA, which provides full RCA detail, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., use tm.get_testExecutionRCA for full RCA detail). Also details filters, date range defaults and constraints, pagination, and sorting, helping the agent decide appropriate usage.

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