find_datasets_with_failure_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exhaustive scope ('every asset in the graph') and implies a read-only query, but it does not mention potential limitations, pagination, or error behavior. It adds some context beyond the bare function but not rich behavioral detail.

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 only two short sentences. The first states the purpose clearly, the second clarifies the parameter format. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description sufficiently explains the core operation and parameter format. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what constitutes an 'asset' or 'graph'), but these are likely assumed in the domain context. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameter with zero description coverage, so the tool description compensation is critical. It explains that failure_modes are slugs and provides concrete examples ('silent-schema-change', 'late-upstream'), giving an agent clear guidance on the expected format. This directly adds value beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 action ('Find every asset'), the resource ('in the graph'), and the condition ('already suffered a given failure mode'). The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on assets by failure mode rather than incident memory or lineage recall.

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 vs. alternatives. The description implies it should be used to find assets affected by a failure mode, but it does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools (e.g., recall_across_lineage or guard_column). Agents are left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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