get_failed_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds further behavioral context by stating it returns only summaries and explicitly excludes result_detail or error_record. It does not mention pagination or default filtering, but the annotation covers the safety profile, so the extra detail earns a solid 4.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; no wasted 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient for a filtered summary tool. It clearly delineates scope but leaves parameter semantics unexplained, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity but not perfect.

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% and the description does not explain the four optional parameters (limit, run_id, category, severity). The schema provides names, types, and defaults, but the description itself adds no meaning to these parameters, and with low coverage it fails to compensate.

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 returns 'failed/error test summaries only', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does not return result_detail or error_record, which sets it apart from get_result_detail and other raw-evidence tools.

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 when to use the tool (when failed/error summaries are needed) and excludes raw evidence use, but does not explicitly name alternative tools. It provides clear context via negative constraints, though it could be stronger by naming a sibling like get_result_detail for raw evidence.

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