get_atf_failure_insight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the insight data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get ATF Failure Insight data') followed by clarifying details. There's zero waste—every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks context about return format, error handling, or integration with sibling ATF tools. For a read operation with 100% schema coverage, it meets basic needs but could be more complete.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'result_sys_id' as 'System ID of the failed suite result'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'failed suite result' or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get ATF Failure Insight data' with specific details about 'metadata changes between last successful and failed run (role changes, field value changes)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ATF Failure Insight data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_atf_suite_result' or 'get_atf_test' that might handle different aspects of ATF data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'get_atf_suite_result' or 'analyze_data_quality' that might serve related purposes. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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