Search the Fail Modes taxonomy by symptom text or keyword phrase. Returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symptom | Yes | Symptom phrase or keyword to search for, e.g. 'made up a citation' or 'refused to help after pushback' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns ranked matches with specific fields, which is appropriate for a search. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, or potential rate limits. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not thorough without annotations.
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 brief, using two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the return format. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose, input, and output. It would benefit from mentioning when to use sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage (the 'symptom' parameter is well-described in the schema), the description adds an example ('e.g. 'made up a citation''), which provides useful context but does not significantly enhance semantic understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('Fail Modes taxonomy'), and what it returns ('ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_failure_mode' (specific ID retrieval) and 'list_categories' (listing categories) by focusing on text-based searching.
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 usage when a symptom phrase is available, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The required parameter 'symptom' is clear, but no context on when to prefer this over 'list_modes' or 'get_failure_mode'.
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.