Retrieve the full structured record for a single failure mode by its ID slug (e.g. 'citation-hallucination', 'sycophancy').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The failure mode ID slug, e.g. 'citation-hallucination' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately identifies the operation as read-only retrieval and mentions that the output is a 'full structured record', but it does not discuss error handling (e.g., invalid ID), permissions, or the exact return format. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying example. No filler words or repetitive 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?
For a one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the parameter, gives examples, and indicates the return type. While no output schema is present, the tool's simplicity and the 'full structured record' phrase make the description adequate without further elaboration.
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%, and the schema already provides the same example ('citation-hallucination'). The description reinforces the ID slug concept but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full structured record for a single failure mode'), with the retrieval method ('by its ID slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_modes or search_failure_modes, which handle collections or searches.
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 when to use the tool: when you already have a failure mode ID slug. It provides concrete examples, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving a single failure mode, listing categories, listing modes with optional filtering, and searching by keyword. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_failure_mode, list_categories, list_modes, search_failure_modes. The verb clearly indicates the action, and nouns are descriptive.
With only 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped for a read-only taxonomy querying server. Each tool earns its place, covering retrieval, listing, filtering, and search without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the core read operations needed for a taxonomy: single record retrieval, categorical listing, and text search. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct 'get category' tool, but list_categories suffices.