find_failed_jobs

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are summarized by abend/step rather than returned as raw job records. It still says nothing about result limits, grouping, or whether the summary is aggregated counts or per-job lines.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (recent window) and the output shape (abend/step summary) both land immediately.

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?

With all parameters optional and no output schema, the description could clarify what the summary looks like (grouped counts vs. per-job entries) and whether there are result caps. Annotations cover safety, so this is adequate but not complete for a summarization tool whose return shape is unspecified.

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 100% – hours, owner, and environment all have descriptions including defaults and the list_environments pointer. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find all failed jobs') plus an output behavior ('summarize their abend/step'), and the time-window scoping is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like analyze_job_failure or summarize_abends, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the bulk-failure lookup versus per-job tools like get_job_status or analyze_job_failure.

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