get_recent_failures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful selection behavior: only 'current latest-run' failures and only within a lookback window. However, it does not mention ordering, output shape, pagination, read-only safety, or any other behavioral details that would fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 tightly worded sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase adds meaningful scope ('only', 'current latest-run', 'within a lookback window') without repetition or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional scalar parameters, the description provides the core purpose and one parameter's semantics. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some ambiguity about what exactly counts as a 'latest-run failure', how results are ordered, and what the response contains.

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%, so the description should compensate for both parameters. It gives semantic meaning to lookback_days via the phrase 'lookback window', but it never mentions the limit parameter or explains how the two parameters interact. The schema provides defaults and bounds, but the description adds only partial parameter context.

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 a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('failures'), further scoped by 'current latest-run' and 'lookback window'. It is not a tautology and names the resource type, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling failure-oriented tools like find_missed_or_overdue_runs or check_delivery_failures.

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 a use case—returning failures within a recent lookback window—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it relates to siblings such as find_missed_or_overdue_runs or summarize_degraded_successes.

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