line_failed_jobs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful content context by saying it returns error, event type, and message text from the most recent failed jobs, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering behavior beyond 'most recent', authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and result fields. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level account of the returned fields. However, it omits usage context and leaves the limit parameter entirely undocumented, so it is only minimally complete.

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 single limit parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. Although 'most recent' hints at ordering, the description does not explain what limit controls, its default, or its maximum, so it fails to compensate for 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource (failed jobs) and the fields returned (error, event type, message text), and 'most recent' scopes it to a recent subset. It does not explicitly name a sibling or say how it differs from line_retry_job, which also concerns failed jobs, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as line_retry_job or line_queue_health. The purpose implies it is for inspecting recent failures, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context is provided.

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