report_failure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that consecutive failures trip the breaker and stop the run, a side effect. It also explains that filing against a route is more valuable than just counting failures. This goes beyond the basic action and discloses consequences, though it does not mention other potential side effects like logging or state changes.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core action, then explains rationale (breaker behavior), then parameter guidance. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, and the rationale is relevant for decision-making.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly: it covers when to use it, what parameters do, and consequences. The note parameter is not explained, but an output schema exists, so return values are covered. For a tool with no annotations, this is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of platform, route, and blocked_at (filing the failure against a route) and implies note is optional context. It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing how these parameters affect behavior, but note is not explicitly described, leaving a small 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report that the current application attempt failed.' This is a specific verb (report) and resource (failure), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reporting failure rather than recording answers or checking status. The context of application attempts makes it unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (when an attempt fails) and provides conditional guidance: 'If the attempt died at a recognisable step, pass platform, route and blocked_at.' It also explains the consequence of consecutive failures (breaker trips), which implies repeated use is discouraged. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the breaker effect.

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