jambavan_failure_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only search by stating 'Search past failure records' and mentions the return type ('structured failure records with status and resolution info'). However, it does not disclose details like search semantics (case sensitivity, real-time vs cached), authentication needs, or rate limits. More specific behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: first introduces the tool's function, second provides a usage guideline. No excessive words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the 3 parameters with full schema description and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for usage. It explains the purpose and return type ('structured failure records with status and resolution info'). However, it could clarify the scope parameter's meaning in context (e.g., what scopes are typical) and whether the search is across sessions.

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 all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the query purpose ('command, error, or symptom') without elaborating on 'limit' or 'scope' behavior.

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 verb (search), resource (past failure records), and scope (command, error, or symptom). It also provides a usage context ('Call BEFORE retrying a failing command'), which helps distinguish it from siblings like jambavan_failure_store.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call BEFORE retrying a failing command to check if it was already diagnosed'). It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the given scenario is clear and actionable.

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