cypress_get_failure_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly lists what the tool returns in detail, giving a strong sense of behavior and output. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens if no failure exists, but the 'Get' phrasing and debugging bundle framing make the read-only nature implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return items. Every clause contributes meaning: the first sentence defines the output, the second positions the tool in the workflow. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the return contents, and the intended workflow role. It omits edge-case behavior like a missing prior failure, but for a simple getter with no params, this description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by specifying the tool targets 'the most recent failure', which gives the agent context about what the tool operates on despite having no formal parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a compact debugging bundle for the most recent failure' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact contents (failing test, error, stack hint, screenshot paths, spec excerpt, recommended next actions). This distinguishes it from siblings like cypress_get_last_run, which likely returns full run details rather than failure-focused debugging context.

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 'This is the key tool for the fix-and-rerun loop' provides a clear, explicit use case, telling the agent when to reach for this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when cypress_get_last_run would be more appropriate), so it lacks full contrast.

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