get_failures

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 conveys read-only behavior via 'Return' and adds the useful 'latest run' scope, but it does not disclose behavior such as how empty results are handled or whether failures are ordered or grouped. These gaps are minor for a simple parameterless read and are partly covered by the output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and object and contains no filler. Every word contributes to selection and invocation.

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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct tool selection and invocation. The only material gap is the lack of any interaction with the sibling get_test_summary, but that is a usage-guidance concern rather than a completeness failure for this simple read.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a clear action ('Return'), a precise resource ('failed tests'), and a scoping qualifier ('latest Playwright test run'). It effectively distinguishes itself from get_test_summary by focusing on failures rather than a summary.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus get_test_summary. It implies only that results are scoped to the latest run, but does not state when to prefer failures over a summary or whether get_test_summary is the alternative for successful tests.

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