get_failed_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but no details are given about return format, pagination, or any side effects. The phrase 'useful for investigating failures' adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 is low in complexity with two parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what a 'failed test' record includes (e.g., test name, error message). The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves ambiguity about the returned structure.

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% with both runId and project described in the input schema. The description's 'from a test run' loosely maps to runId but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description states an explicit verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'failed tests from a test run', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_test_results or get_test_runs_for_build by scoping to failed tests within a given run.

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?

Adds the context 'useful for investigating failures' but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_test_results or analyze_test_failures, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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