get_failed_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes returns all failures by default (no limit) and error_lines controls stack trace length, but omits potential large output, performance impact, pagination, or authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool, this gap is significant.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers core functionality but lacks details on ordering, pagination, error handling (e.g., no failures), or how it relates to similar tools. Adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context about error_lines controlling stack trace length and limit's default (all). This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool retrieves failed tests for a job with full error details, specifying the required parameters (run_id, job_id) and optional controls like error_lines. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_flaky_tests or get_slow_tests by focusing on failures.

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 mentions controlling stack trace length with error_lines and default behavior, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like get_failures_by_pattern or get_job_tests. Usage context is implied but not directly compared to siblings.

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