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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'full structured record' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. As a read-only operation, minimal transparency is acceptable, 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes an example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 should compensate by hinting at what the 'full structured record' contains. It is vague and does not specify fields or structure, making it less complete for an agent expecting return value details.
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 100% for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds value by providing an example format ('citation-hallucination', 'sycophancy'), which helps the agent understand acceptable values beyond the schema's generic description.
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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'failure mode', and the identifier 'ID slug' with examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list_categories, list_modes, search_failure_modes) by focusing on a single record retrieval.
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: to get a single failure mode's full record. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a single record by ID, listing categories, listing modes (optionally filtered), and searching by symptom text. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_failure_mode, list_categories, list_modes, search_failure_modes. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only taxonomy explorer: one for retrieval, two for listing (categories and modes), and one for search. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers all essential operations for exploring failure modes: listing categories, listing modes, searching, and getting details. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.