uipath_get_faulted_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals what is returned (job errors, durations, failure info) but does not mention pagination, default limits, filtering behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds some value beyond the tool name but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds return details, making every word earn its place.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should cover more. It states the return content at a high level but omits usage scenarios, parameter interplay, and any behavioral caveats. While the tool is straightforward, the description leaves gaps for an agent to infer correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions return content, not how parameters influence results.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('faulted/failed jobs') and adds distinguishing details ('with error details'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like uipath_get_jobs (which likely returns all jobs) and uipath_get_job_details (which is for a specific job).

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 phrase 'for troubleshooting automation failures' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks comparative guidance such as 'use uipath_get_jobs for all jobs' or 'use uipath_get_job_details for a single job's details.'

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