Get Test Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the requirement for project context and clarifies the content of the response (status, timing, per-case results), which goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a specific usage hint and a prerequisite, making it efficient 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key elements: what it does, what it returns, and a prerequisite. It could be more explicit about edge cases or pagination, but for a single-ID retrieval it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema documents testRunId as a GUID. The description adds value by indicating the parameter is obtained from run_test_suite, providing a practical source hint beyond the schema's static 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 clearly states the tool retrieves results for a specific test run, listing the included content (status, timing, per-case results). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'specific test run' wording helps distinguish it from plural variants like get_test_results, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 provides the source of the required testRunId (returned by run_test_suite) and notes that project context is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_test_results or get_test_result, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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