create_test_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but no details are given about required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what 'configured project' means. The description is too sparse to cover these aspects.

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, front-loaded sentence of eight words. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 a simple create operation with full schema documentation, but the description lacks guidance on return values (no output schema exists) and clarifies the ambiguous 'configured project'. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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 100%, with all four parameters (name, case_ids, suite_id, description) adequately described. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and names the resource ('test run') within a clear context ('configured TestRail project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_test_runs or close_test_run by indicating a creation action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention related operations like add_test_results or update_test_case, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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