analyze_test_failures

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 discloses only that failures are grouped by error type, but fails to mention output format, read-only nature, permissions, or any side effects. This leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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, directly relevant sentence that front-loads the verb and object. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the returned analysis looks like (e.g., counts, error type categories, or sample structure). An agent cannot reliably interpret the result or fully understand the tool's scope.

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% (buildId: 'Build ID to analyze', project: 'Project name'). The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

States clear verb 'analyze' with object 'test failures in a build' and adds distinguishing detail 'groups failures by error type' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_failed_tests (raw list) and analyze_build_errors (build errors). Concise and specific.

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?

Implies usage for analyzing test failures within a build, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives. Given sibling tools exist, this is a missed opportunity.

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