get_atf_failure_insight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content of the insight (metadata changes, role changes, field value changes), going beyond annotations. However, it does not address other behaviors like pagination, error conditions, or what happens if no previous successful run exists. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that conveys purpose and key scope, with examples and no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the tool name and immediately specifies the resource and comparison nature.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core output type (metadata changes) and the context (between last successful and failed run), which is sufficient for understanding. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of a failed run) or more about the output format, but the essential behavior is clear given the annotations and schema.

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 single parameter result_sys_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with 'System ID of the failed suite result'. The description does not add further semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'ATF Failure Insight data' and clearly defines the scope: metadata changes between last successful and failed run, with examples (role changes, field value changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_atf_suite_result, which would return the suite result itself, and run_atf_test, which executes tests.

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 implies usage context: use when investigating an ATF failure by comparing metadata changes across runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the scenario is clear enough. Lacks explicit exclusions or pointer to complementary tools like get_atf_suite_result.

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