analyze_failure_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It accurately conveys that the tool classifies failure modes and suggests assertion contractions, which implies non-mutating analysis. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or any prerequisites such as an existing failed synthesis run. This leaves some ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds supporting detail. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to explain inputs, outputs, and required context. It does not describe the return format or how the suggested assertions are presented, nor does it clarify what 'contract an assertion' means in this workflow. The description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It does not mention any of the five parameters (projectId, regionId, errorMessage, testPassRate, mutationScore) or how they relate to the analysis. The connection to failure mode is implicit but not sufficient; an agent would not know which parameters to provide.

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 ('Analyze') and identifies the resource ('synthesis attempt failed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like synthesis_status_tool or run_unit_tests_tool. It also states the two key outputs (failure mode classification and suggested assertions to contract), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 after a synthesis attempt fails but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives like synthesis_status_tool for checking run status or synthesize_patch_tool for generating fixes, so guidance is only implicit.

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