list_failure_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (summary), but fails to disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, how 'recurring' is determined, or output format. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which on the surface is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It's not front-loaded with key information; it's just brief. A score of 3 balances conciseness with the need for more detail.

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 tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the summary includes, how trends are computed, or what constraints apply. The tool is moderately complex and the description neglects important context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'over a time window' which maps to the 'days' parameter, but does not explain the 'branch' or 'limit' parameters. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Summarize recurring failed jobs over a time window' clearly states the core action (summarize), resource (failed jobs), and scope (time window). The word 'recurring' adds specificity, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'summarize_failure' or 'get_failed_runs'. The purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguishing.

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. With nine sibling tools, agents would benefit from explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. The context is missing entirely.

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