get_bug_failure_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions what information is retrieved (failure summary, detailed test runs), it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance characteristics, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. The mention of 'SQL widgets' and templateIds provides some implementation context but not enough operational transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The emoji adds visual distinction but doesn't detract from clarity. While concise, it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (crucial without an output schema), doesn't cover error handling, and provides no guidance on tool selection among many similar siblings. The mention of specific templateIds (6 & 10) adds some domain context but doesn't compensate for the broader completeness 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how dashboardId and hashcode work together) or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive failure information') with specific components mentioned (failure summary, detailed test runs, SQL widgets, templateId references). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'analyze_test_failure' by emphasizing retrieval rather than analysis, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'get_launch_details' or 'get_test_execution_history'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools dealing with test failures, launches, and bug reviews (e.g., 'analyze_test_failure', 'get_bug_review', 'get_launch_details'), there's no indication of when this specific failure information retrieval tool is preferred over other options.

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