Get test runs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe to read. The description adds behavioral details: sorting (most-recent first) and a summary (total runs, latest result, pass/fail status), going beyond annotations.

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 that covers action, ordering, and output. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., listing parameters separately). However, it is not verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value (summary), but does not specify the shape of each test run record. The agent might need more detail on what fields are returned.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. The description does not mention the 'project' required parameter or the optional 'limit' parameter with its default, min, or max. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 reads test runs and returns them sorted most-recent first, plus a summary of total runs, latest result, and pass/fail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_runs_by_suite or log_test_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 implies use when you want to see recent test runs and their summary. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like test_runs_by_suite, which might filter by test suite.

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