get_failed_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read operation returning error messages and attachment paths, but it does not disclose behavior when no previous run exists, whether results are ordered/filtered, or any side effects. It adds some value but remains minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the key output fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool, including what the result contains. It only lacks explicit edge-case behavior such as the absence of a prior run, but this does not make the tool unusable.

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?

The sole parameter workingDirectory has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline applies. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('failed tests from the last run'), and it names the included contents ('error messages and attachment paths'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run_status and get_test_attachment.

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?

'From the last run' implies usage after test execution, giving some context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as get_run_status or when not to use it. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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