get_manual_run

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation. It does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields. Second sentence adds parameter clarification. Efficient, though could be slightly more concise if merged.

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?

Return fields are listed, and parameter semantics are partially explained. However, no output schema is provided, and the description does not cover error handling or the relationship to sibling tools like get_run_details. Adequate but missing some context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds an example for runId (counter-style ID like 'RUN-12'), which is helpful but not essential. No additional meaning for projectId.

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 gets full details of one manual test run and lists included fields. It distinguishes from list_manual_runs but not from get_run_details, which may be ambiguous. Overall, specific verb and resource are clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_run_details or list_manual_runs. The description assumes the user knows when to retrieve a single run, which is not explicit.

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