get_latest_failure

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it scans recent runs, finds all failures, and returns details per failure (step/task, exception, stderr). It does not mention side effects or safety, but the behavior is clearly described. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds value beyond the minimum.

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 concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent lines explain parameters efficiently. No wasted words; every sentence adds information.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals), the description appropriately covers the tool's behavior and return values (failing step/task, exception, stderr). It also explains the scanning scope via last_n_runs and namespace. However, it does not mention edge cases like no failures found or performance implications. Still, it is largely complete for a focused tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for each parameter: explains 'last_n_runs' as number of recent runs to scan (default 20), and 'namespace' with a hint to use get_config. 'flow_name' lacks additional context, but given the coverage gap, the description adds significant value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds failed runs and returns error details, including the failing step/task, exception, and stderr. The verb 'find' and resource 'failed runs' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_recent_runs or search_runs by focusing on failures.

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 by describing what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides some guidance on the namespace parameter ('Use get_config to find your default_namespace') but lacks a broader usage context.

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