ops_recent_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it mentions 'local diagnostics state,' it fails to specify retention periods, whether the operation is read-only, output format, or if querying affects the state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without redundancy. However, it is underspecified given the lack of supporting schema documentation.

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 diagnostic tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks essential context such as parameter semantics, failure retention policies, and return value structure.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, kind, method). The description adds no semantic information to compensate, leaving critical parameters like `kind` and `method` completely undefined.

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 provides a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('tool, Slack API, or access-control failures'), including scope ('from local diagnostics state'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `ops_audit_log_read` or `ops_explain_error`.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `ops_audit_log_read` or `ops_explain_error`, nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions.

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