analyze_failure_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the main transformation and output categories: combine waveform, hierarchy, and source information, and return recommended instances, signals, and source files. It does not elaborate on side effects, failure behavior, or dependencies beyond the implicit 'normalized failure_event' prerequisite, but the core behavior is not hidden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently states the starting input, the data sources combined, and the output types, which is good for conciseness even if the tool's complexity might warrant more detail.

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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. It omits the explicit relationship to parse_sim_log, the role of optional parameters, and any guidance on what the recommended output looks like structurally.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates only loosely: 'waveform, hierarchy, and source information' hints at wave_path, top_hint, and compile_log but never maps these terms to actual parameters. It does not clarify log_path, top_hint, or compile_log semantics, and the only meaningful parameter explanation comes from the schema's failure_event description.

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 identifies the tool's action: start from a single normalized failure_event, combine waveform/hierarchy/source information, and return recommended instances, signals, and source files. It distinguishes itself from plural/multi-event siblings like analyze_failures by emphasizing 'single normalized failure_event', though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'Start from a single normalized failure_event' implies the tool is meant to be used after parse_sim_log and per single failure event, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as analyze_failures, recommend_failure_debug_next_steps, or get_diagnostic_snapshot, nor does it state exclusions.

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