functions_complete_error

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Signal' without revealing any side effects, required permissions, or consequences (e.g., whether it terminates execution or records the error). This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose. While efficient, it lacks some necessary detail, preventing a perfect score.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description combined with schema specifications provides sufficient completeness to use the tool correctly. Minor omissions in behavioral context are acceptable.

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 100%, providing adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context for the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Signal that a function failed to complete' clearly states the tool's purpose using a specific verb ('Signal') and resource ('function failed'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'functions_complete_success' by explicitly indicating failure.

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 implies usage when a function fails, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'functions_complete_success'. No context for preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided.

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