Export Test Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it states that the report content is returned inline. It also discloses the project-context requirement, which is relevant for invocation. It does not describe failure modes or what happens if context is missing, but for a read-only export this is adequate.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then gives format details, usage guidance, return behavior, and a prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter read-only export tool, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, the format options with a recommendation, the inline return behavior, and the project-context requirement. The schema covers all parameter details, and no output schema exists, so the description's statement about inline content is sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the practical purpose of the junit format for CI systems, which goes beyond the schema's simple value list. It also reinforces the format defaults, though it does not add new meaning for testRunId beyond the schema's 'Public Id (Guid)' description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export a test run as a report.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_spec and export_findings_sarif by naming the test-run resource and from get_test_run by framing it as a report export. The format options further clarify what kind of output the tool produces.

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 format-selection guidance: 'use junit for CI systems that consume JUnit XML.' It also notes that project context is required, which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the guidance provided is clear enough for the main decision points.

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