get_run_failure_summary

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully describes the behavior: it returns consolidated failure info, lists the exact fields returned, includes an edge case ('If the run did not fail, returns {message: 'Run did not fail.'}'), and mentions automated diagnostic hints. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for this query tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then provides usage guidance, lists return fields in a bulleted list, and ends with tool selection advice. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values, including edge cases. However, the lack of parameter description slightly reduces completeness. Overall, it provides rich context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function and output.

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 0%, so the description should explain the parameters (run_id and optional env). However, it only implicitly implies run_id by saying 'for a run' but provides no details about parameter format, required vs optional, or the meaning of env. The output schema is rich but the input parameters are not described.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a consolidated failure diagnosis for a run in a single call.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run_status, get_run_logs, and get_run_stats by combining their outputs, making it the best choice for failed or canceled runs.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'always prefer this over get_run_logs for failed runs.' It also specifies when to use alternatives: 'Use get_run_logs only when you need the full event stream.' This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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