testneo_get_failure_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the output components and the conditional inclusion of an NLP patch, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation or any potential side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes important conditional behavior. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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, the description lists the bundle components (summary, logs, theme, etc.), which provides useful context. However, it lacks details on the output format, error handling, or pagination behavior for logs/events. The condition for the NLP patch is clearly stated, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 fails to explain any of the four parameters beyond the implied execution_id. Parameters like logs_limit, event_limit, and include_nlp_patch_suggestion have defaults but no rationale in the description, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema types and constraints.

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 it retrieves a failure triage bundle containing specific components like summary, logs, and an NLP patch. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'failure triage bundle' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like testneo_get_execution_summary or testneo_search_failures by offering a comprehensive, actionable bundle.

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 use when investigating a failure with an execution ID, as it returns a triage bundle. It mentions conditions for the NLP patch, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like testneo_get_execution_logs or testneo_search_failures.

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