get_test_runs

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

Annotations only provide a title that repeats the description, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get list') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'historical' run. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, avoiding redundancy while clearly stating what the tool does.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations beyond title, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., ordering options, pagination, datetime filters). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of historical BugBug test runs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_test_run' (singular) or 'show_run_from_last_24', which suggests it retrieves multiple runs but leaves ambiguity about scope compared to alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_test_run' (singular), 'show_run_from_last_24', and 'get_test_run_status', there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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