summarize_degraded_successes

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

The description surfaces a useful behavioral trait: it looks inside summaries of runs classified as successful and matches them against a set of degradation keywords. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how 'repeated' is determined, what data is scanned, or what the returned summary contains.

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 one tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core behavior and all meaningful keywords. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to carry more weight: it should clarify the two parameters, the meaning of 'repeated', and the return shape. It covers the conceptual purpose but leaves key invocation details unspecified.

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 never mentions patterns or lookback_runs. The agent must infer from names that patterns are likely strings to search for and lookback_runs limits how far back to look; the default/min/max in the schema provide some structure, but the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters affect behavior.

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 names a concrete operation ('find') and a precise target: repeated successful runs whose summaries contain partial, fallback, unavailable, or warning states. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_failures or get_job_health, which target failures or health status rather than apparently successful runs with degraded summaries.

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 target condition is clear enough to infer when this tool applies, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With siblings such as find_missed_or_overdue_runs and get_recent_failures nearby, an agent is left to infer the boundary from the name and condition alone.

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