demo_explain_run_failure

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs and explains but omits critical details: side effects (e.g., trace creation), permissions, or what 'explain' entails. The description barely adds beyond the name.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified for the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no behavioral context). It is too short to be effective; length does not compensate for missing information.

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 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context. An output schema exists but does not compensate for description gaps.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the three parameters (root_dir, table, trace_db_path). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Run a traced failing flow, then explain the failed run immediately.' It specifies the verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like demo_explain_run (which handles successful runs) and other demo_explain variants.

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 for failing flows but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiate from numerous sibling tools like demo_explain_concurrency_failure_storm or demo_explain_idempotency_conflict. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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