Log test run

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds context about the target file (test_runs.md) and the board's ability to surface results, but does not disclose whether the operation appends or overwrites, or handle missing files.

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, efficiently conveying purpose and workflow. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on conflict resolution, file creation, and expected format for summary. Given no output schema, completeness is moderate.

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 only 14% (only suite described). The description mentions 'passed/failed/skipped' linking to integer fields, and notes optional suite/ticket/summary, but does not explain the meaning of integer values or that project is required. Adds some value with low coverage.

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 records test run results (passed/failed/skipped) to a specific file (board's test_runs.md). It distinguishes itself from siblings that log bugs or retrieve runs, using specific verbs and resources.

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 hints at usage context (run tests via shell, store report) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_runs_by_suite or log_bug. Lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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