get_failed_activity_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the core behavior (filtering and extracting fields) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. However, the description implies a retrieval action, which is acceptable for a read tool, but it lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 two sentences with high information density. The key phrase 'RCA convenience tool' is front-loaded, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description mentions the output fields (error_code/message/failure_type), which helps the agent understand the return format. It also gives a clear use case. However, it does not mention the required parameters (resource_group, factory_name, run_id) or any preconditions, and the lack of parameter guidance makes it less complete for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 provides no explanation of any of the five parameters (run_id, start_time, end_time, factory_name, resource_group). It does not mention what each parameter means or how they affect the call, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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 it is an 'RCA convenience tool' that returns only failed activities with extracted error_code/message/failure_type. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_activity_runs by narrowing scope to failures, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to 'Prefer this over list_activity_runs when you just need "what went wrong" rather than the full activity list.' This names the alternative and the condition, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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