List quarantined tests

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral consequence beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: expired entries fail the build until renewed or removed. It does not conflict with annotations and gives the agent useful context about downstream impact without restating the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and then add one important behavioral note. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 output schema, annotations, and simple optional parameter, the description is complete for invocation: it identifies the source file, the returned fields, expiration semantics, and the build-failure consequence. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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% for the single optional repo parameter, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no param-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden adequately.

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 ('Reads') and names an exact resource (the quarantine ledger at .flake/quarantine.yaml), then spells out exactly what is returned: reason, owner, expiry, and expiration status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flake.gate or flake.rank, whose purposes are different even without explicit comparison.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when it should not be used. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer its role purely from the title and subject matter.

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