Get failure details

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description usefully adds the return payload (error message, stack trace, captured output) in the absence of an output schema. It does not state no-match behavior or result size, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the returned content before the filter condition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the name filter works. Only the undefined 'suite' scope and no-match behavior keep it short of 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 50%: testName is documented as 'Full or partial test name', and the description reinforces that this is a 'contains' match. The required 'suite' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, which is a real 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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus precise resource ('error message, stack trace and captured output for failing tests'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable in spirit from get_test_results, but the description never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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 phrase 'failing tests whose name contains the given text' implies the usage context (drilling into a known failure) and the substring matching rule. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_test_results, and no guidance on what happens when nothing matches.

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