get_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. However, it does not clarify whether the tool runs tests itself or simply reports failures from a previous run. It also fails to disclose any side effects or the role of the 'test_dir' parameter, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, with two short sentences. Both sentences serve a purpose: the first states the core action, the second gives the rationale. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not explain how 'test_dir' affects behavior, nor does it clarify the relationship with sibling tools or the format of the returned failures. This is insufficient for reliable usage.

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 schema has one optional parameter ('test_dir') with a default value, but the description does not mention or explain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it completely ignores the parameter, leaving its meaning unclear.

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 tool's function: 'Devolver solo las pruebas que fallaron' (return only failed tests). This distinct verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like 'run_all_tests' and 'run_test_file', which execute tests rather than retrieve failures.

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 'Para corregir rápido' implies a usage context (quick fixing), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or workflow. The usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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