get_consecutive_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the inclusion criterion (last 2+ consecutive failures), what the returned timing fields mean (last_passed_date, first_failed_date), and the diagnostic intent. It omits pagination, ordering, and permission/version-resolution behavior, but the core behavioral profile is present.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The core definition, the disambiguation, and the qualification rule are all front-loaded before the optional detail about returned timing fields.

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?

Five optional parameters are fully covered by the schema and no output schema exists, so the description's job of explaining the return shape (timing fields with their diagnostic purpose) is mostly fulfilled. Missing only peripheral details like result ordering, which is minor for this read-only diagnostic 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 100%, so every parameter (days, limit, version, project_id, min_consecutive_failures) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the default threshold with 'last 2+ runs have failed' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('get tests that are failing consecutively') and immediately disambiguates the resource with the parenthetical '(broken tests, not flaky)', which cleanly separates it from the get_flaky_tests sibling. The scope rule (last 2+ runs failed) further pins down the resource.

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 'not flaky' contrast tells the agent when to prefer this over a flaky-test tool, and the mention of identifying 'which merge broke them' frames the diagnostic use case. It stops short of naming concrete alternatives or stating exclusions explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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