create_dora_failures_v2_2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets a list' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the list returns, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 clear sentence that states the core purpose. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool with no parameters. However, the potential contradiction between 'create' in the name and 'get' in the description suggests some structural issue that could be clarified.

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 tool has no parameters (simplifying context) but also has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'failure event' in the DORA context, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context about the response would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter information since there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'to get a list of failure events', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_dora_failure' or other failure-related tools, and the name 'create_dora_failures_v2_2' suggests a creation operation while the description describes a retrieval operation, creating some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools that appear to handle DORA metrics and failures (like 'create_dora_failures_v2', 'get_dora_failure'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool should be used or what differentiates it from those alternatives.

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