find_failing_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (only failing jobs) which is a non-trivial detail. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no jobs fail (empty list?), whether it paginates, or whether the 'last run' reflects a specific time window. For a read-only listing tool this is modest but adequate disclosure.

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?

A single, lean sentence that conveys the core purpose with zero waste. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the filtering criterion. Appropriate length for a focused listing tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema which relieves the need to describe return values. With one optional parameter and a clear simple purpose, the description is arguably sufficient. However, the prefix parameter is undocumented and sibling disambiguation is absent, so complete guidance would require a bit more. Overall adequate but not rich.

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?

There is 1 parameter (prefix) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain what 'prefix' filters. It does not mention the prefix parameter at all. However, the param has a default of empty string and is optional, so the agent might infer it filters job names. The description adds no meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema name implies, so this is a moderate gap.

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 has a specific verb ('return') and resource ('scheduled jobs'), and qualifies the filter clearly ('whose last run exited with an error'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_jobs (which likely returns all). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative way of achieving this, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use it (when you need failing jobs only), but doesn't give explicit exclusions or alternatives. Given siblings like check_recent_errors and check_log_freshness exist, some guidance on when to use find_failing_jobs vs those would help the agent disambiguate.

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