Report CI results

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it guarantees no half-open run if the agent stops early, auto-splits batches larger than 200, caps at 2000 results, and states cost/latency tradeoffs versus three separate calls. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and usage, then layers in parameter notes, batching, cost, and latency. A small amount of redundancy exists between 'creates the run, records every result, and completes it' and the later replacement list of sibling calls, but each paragraph earns its place.

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's complexity, an output schema exists, and the annotations and schema cover safety and constraints, the description is complete: it explains the orchestration, alternatives, result requirements, batching limits, cost profile, and completion behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by emphasizing that each result needs a numeric case_id plus a status and may carry duration, comment, stacktrace, and attachment hashes, but these map directly to schema properties and do not substantially deepen their semantics.

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 composite action ('Report a whole CI run in one call') and enumerates the three sub-steps it performs: creates the run, records every result, completes it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from qase_run_upsert, qase_result_record, and qase_run_complete, making the tool's role 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'tool for a pipeline that has just finished.' It also names alternatives with conditions: use qase_result_record when the run already exists and results arrive in stages, and qase_run_upsert when the run needs to be left open. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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