list_manual_runs

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 pagination defaults (page size 25, max 200) and state normalization behavior. However, it omits other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on empty results.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently enumerates filters and defaults. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a list tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all filter types, pagination defaults, and special values. It lacks details on the return format (though inferred) and ordering, but remains adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 50% (6 out of 12 parameters described). The description adds value for 'releaseId' (special value 'none') and 'state' (normalization), but fails to explain 'environment', 'isClosed', 'sortBy', 'sortOrder', and 'page' beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Browse' and resource 'manual test runs', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_manual_run' (single run) and 'list_run_test_cases' (test cases within a run).

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 lists all filter options, including special values like 'releaseId=none'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context of browsing vs. getting a single run is clear from sibling names.

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