get_failure_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the analysis dimensions returned (failure rates by hour, day, version, browser/site, duration), implying a read-only aggregate report, but says nothing about permissions, data volume, or how results are shaped.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return dimensions, with no filler. Efficient, though it could be tightened into one sentence.

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 no output schema, the description does some work by listing the breakdowns produced, which is the key thing an agent needs to know. However, it omits scoping behavior (does spec_file alone drive the analysis? what happens without project_id?), and gives no hint about result size or how it differs from the nine sibling analysis tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (days, spec_file, project_id, test_title) is already documented in the schema. The description mentions analysis dimensions but does not clarify how those map to or interact with parameters like test_title or project_id, so it adds little beyond the schema 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: analyze test failures to identify patterns, and enumerates the dimensions of the analysis (hour, day of week, version, browser/site, duration). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_recent_failures or get_flaky_tests, though it never names or contrasts against them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling tools (get_flaky_tests, get_correlated_failures, get_test_trend, etc.) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that this is the 'pattern analysis' option purely from the verb 'analyze'.

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