failure_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'list' without explaining behavior such as pagination, sorting, maximum results, or what a 'failure experience' entails. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or execution characteristics.

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 concise sentence, which is easy to read. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural elements like examples or additional context. It reads as a fragment rather than a well-rounded tool description.

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?

This is a simple list tool with two parameters and a partial schema, but the description provides no information about return format, pagination, relevance, or how it compares to failure_search. The lack of annotations and output schema makes the description inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and capabilities.

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 100%, with both 'limit' and 'skill_name' already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. Because the schema handles parameter semantics well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List failure experiences' directly restates the tool name 'failure_list' without adding any specifics beyond the resource type. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like failure_search, which likely provides similar functionality. This is essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as failure_search. The description contains no context about preferred use cases, limitations, or exclusions. The only hint of a filter is in the parameter schema, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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