Get test runs

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds context about the summary content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the summary. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple with annotations and few parameters, but the description omits clarification on how 'limit' affects the returned list and does not explain the relationship between the list and summary. With no output schema, the description could do more to fully inform the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'project' parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the action (Read), the resource (recorded test runs), ordering (most-recent first), and the return value (summary with total runs, latest result, passing status). This distinguishes it from other test-related tools.

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 implies usage for reviewing recent test runs and overall health. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like 'test_runs_by_suite' or 'get_regressions', leaving some ambiguity.

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