failure_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior ('View'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, ordering, or whether results are paginated (though 'limit' parameter hints at pagination). The 'limit' parameter adds transparency but more detail would be helpful.

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 concise: one line for purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and none are wasted. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essentials but misses some context. It does not mention the return structure (e.g., list of records) or ordering. Given the complexity is low, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description explains each parameter's purpose ('Filter by printer name', 'Filter by failure type', 'Maximum records to return') despite the schema having no descriptions (0% coverage). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. A higher score would require additional details like accepted value formats or behaviors when both filters are applied.

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 ('View') and resource ('failure history'), and specifies the two main filtering dimensions (printer name, failure type). This makes the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar history tools like 'print_history' or 'job_history' among the siblings.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the name and parameter descriptions alone.

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