Log test run

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints. The description discloses it writes to test_runs.md, which is a mutation, but does not detail whether it appends or overwrites, nor mention permissions or side effects. Some transparency exists but insufficient for a full behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and the parameters, the second clarifies its role vs test execution. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about the required 'project', return value, and behavior on duplicates. It covers the core functionality but misses contextual details that would help an agent fully understand usage.

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% (suite described). The description clarifies that passed, failed, skipped are integers for counts and ticket/summary are optional strings, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the required 'project' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 it records test run results (passed/failed/skipped) to the board's test_runs.md, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_test_runs (read) and generate_test (create). The verb 'Record' and resource 'test run result' are specific and unambiguous.

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 after running tests ('You run the tests... this stores the report') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_test_runs or log_bug. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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