get_failed_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only 'list' and indicates the returned data structure (descriptions and remediation). However, it does not mention error handling, assumptions about the results file, or any side effects, though the verb implies safety.

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 conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. Every phrase 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the input file, and the optional filter, and hints at the output content. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format when no failures exist, but overall it is sufficient for this complexity level.

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 100%, and the description adds context by mentioning the optional category filter. It does not provide new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding significant parameter semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('failed tests from a results file') and clarifies that results include descriptions and remediation, optionally filtered by category. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_test_detail, which focuses on a single test.

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 provides clear context: it is used to list failed tests from a results file, with an optional category filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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