search_past_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only query, what data it covers, what it returns, or any side effects or limitations.

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 extremely short but not appropriately concise; it is under-specified. It consists only of a tautological phrase that adds no actionable information for an agent.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool or what behavior to expect. The tool cannot be used correctly based on the provided definition alone.

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?

The tool has zero parameters for the agent to interprethysics, which matches the baseline of 4. No parameter documentation is necessary since the input schema is effectively unrestricted and empty.

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 'search past failures' merely restates the tool name, providing no meaningful elaboration on what constitutes a 'past failure' or what the search returns. It also offers no differentiation from sibling tools like get_regression_test or replay_behavior_case.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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