analyze_failures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that only the first occurrence of a single failure group is examined, that it returns specific artifacts, and that FSDB support depends on fsdb_runtime.enabled. This gives an agent meaningful context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 two sentences with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. The key scoping detail (first occurrence, single failure group) appears early, and the FSDB dependency is included as a necessary operational caveat.

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 description states what outputs to expect, which is important because there is no output schema. It also covers a critical runtime dependency. It could be stronger by explaining how this tool relates to sibling analysis tools, but for a single-tool invocation it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add extra semantic detail about parameters, but it is not required to compensate for missing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific failure-analysis tool and states its scope: the first occurrence of a single failure group. It also lists concrete outputs (log summary, raw error context, waveform snapshot), making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. It does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 text says this is the "core failure-analysis tool," which suggests general use, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as analyze_failure_event or recommend_failure_debug_next_steps, nor does it explain how to choose among the many sibling tools.

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