get_failure_debug_context

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 lists output components but does not disclose behavior like mutability, side effects, performance, or auth requirements. This is minimal for a tool that presumably gathers data from various sources.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for a tool with multiple outputs and several siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it builds an 'AI-ready debug pack' and lists specific components (failure fingerprint, run history, etc.), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_failure_history, get_failure_hotspots, and get_fix_suggestions by combining multiple aspects into one pack.

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 usage for obtaining a comprehensive debug pack but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over individual siblings like get_failure_history or get_failure_hotspots. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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