turnsignal_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contract in detail (failure classification, new-vs-default-branch status, artifact links), which is the main behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a retrieval tool with no side effects. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if both runId and runKey are supplied, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence whose first clause states the purpose and whose remaining clauses enumerate the payload, followed by a short sentence covering invocation. Every clause carries information and the scoping/precedence rule is front-loaded after the purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both the return payload and how to target a run, and it does both. The only gap is the branch parameter's interaction with runId/runKey and the absence of any operational notes (auth, limits), which is minor for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is low (33%: only 'branch' is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does, explaining the meaning and precedence of runId, runKey (with format example), and the 'neither' fallback to the latest run. It leaves the interplay with the branch parameter (branch only vs. branch with id/key) unstated, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('One run explained') and enumerates exactly what the run detail contains (verdict, failed/flaky/missing tests with file:line, error, snippet, new-vs-default-branch, trace/video/screenshot). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/history/flaky tools, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection guidance: pass runId, or runKey (with a concrete example format 'github:1234567'), or neither for the latest run. It does not name the siblings (e.g., turnsignal_recent_runs as the way to obtain a runId) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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