get_failure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: output is redacted and never includes cookies, authorization headers, credentials, or full logs. That is a genuine security-scoping guarantee beyond the schema. It stops short of covering auth requirements or behavior for non-failed runs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content and scoped with the redaction constraint. It is efficient, but the redaction idea is stated twice ('redacted failure summary' and 'Never returns ... full logs'), a small 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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (failure summary, bundle path) and the redaction boundary, which is the key thing an agent needs. Missing only the origin/format of run_id and behavior for a non-failed run.

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 run_id carries no title or description, so the description would need to compensate. It says nothing about run_id format, source, or whether it must reference a failed run, but the single self-explanatory identifier keeps this only a moderate gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: returns a failure summary and bundle path. It clearly describes the payload shape ('failure summary and bundle path'), which distinguishes it from a status-only tool, though it never names the sibling it differs from, such as get_run_status or validate_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?

The clause 'for a failed run' implies the triggering condition, so usage is inferable. However, it gives no comparison against get_run_status or validate_run, and does not say what happens if the run did not fail, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right call.

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