get_run_details

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

The description discloses that the tool returns test statistics, suite/case details, git metadata, and error details, and that it supports batch operations with a max of 20 IDs. However, without annotations, additional behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, rate limits, permission requirements) are missing. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition of capabilities, listing of returned data, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any unnecessary words. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists the categories of returned information (statistics, suites, cases, git metadata, error details), which provides a clear picture of what the tool yields. It also notes a constraint (batch max 20). Minor omission: no mention of pagination or sorting, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a detailed information 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?

All input parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., batch operation behavior is already in the schema). Thus, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get detailed information about test runs') and enumerates the specific content it returns (statistics, suites, cases, git metadata, error details). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_testruns (which likely provides summaries) and get_testcase_details (which focuses on individual cases).

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'analyze test execution health or debug specific failures.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage guidance is clear and implies that it is for deep analysis rather than listing. Alternative tools are not named, but the sibling list provides contextual awareness.

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