get_job_failure_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool returns root-cause failure messages from the latest failed attempt plus context and stats, but does not mention idempotence, permissions, or behavior when no failure exists. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 at two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output, but lacks parameter details and behavioral context like when to call this vs. raw logs. It is minimally complete for a simple tool.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters (job_id and env). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to elaborate on their meaning or usage, leaving a gap for the AI agent.

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 purpose: it returns consolidated failure diagnosis for a sync job. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'failure summary', and distinguishes itself from raw logs and sibling tools like get_job or get_job_details.

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 advises 'prefer over raw logs', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the preference guidance is strong enough for most cases.

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