add_run

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

No annotations are present, and the description lacks any behavioral disclosure such as side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites. The burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to provide meaningful transparency.

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 sentence, making it concise, but lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. It is not overly verbose, but does not efficiently convey essential details.

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 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is severely lacking. The agent cannot accurately invoke the tool without guessing parameter formats or behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Add a new test run' clearly states the action (add) and resource (test run), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_case or add_result, which follow the same pattern.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as close_run, delete_run, or add_case. The agent receives no contextual cues for selection.

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