report_failed_jobs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the parameter and return format, but omits side effects, permissions, data freshness, pagination, or error handling—critical for a report 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—three short lines covering purpose, parameter, and return structure. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects but lacks detail on the content of 'instances' and does not differentiate from similar reports. Additional context on use vs. list_job_instances would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaning for the 'limit' parameter (default and purpose), which compensates. It could be improved with constraints (e.g., maximum value), but is sufficient for usage.

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 explicitly states it lists failed job instances sorted by error count, using a specific verb (listet...auf) and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_job_instances that likely list all instances.

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 error reporting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_job_instances) or conditions that warrant its use.

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