get_failed_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing and mentions truncated log tails, but says nothing about safety, permissions, pagination, or whether the log tail is bounded in size.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the short Args block is easy to scan. The 'ctx: MCP context' line is boilerplate that adds nothing, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should be doing much more work. It hints at the log-tail payload but leaves the return shape, error behavior, and scoping (all items vs limited) underspecified for a diagnostic tool.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only supplies terse glosses (node_path = 'TOP node path', limit = 'Maximum items returned') that add little beyond the parameter names, and gives no format or path-syntax guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list work items that failed on a TOP node, plus the added detail that each entry includes the tail of its log. This distinguishes it from generic TOP readers like get_work_item_states, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this supersedes get_work_item_states, get_top_logs, or get_work_item_info, or when a failing-item scan is the right call versus inspecting a single item.

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