weak_spots

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds behavioral details: 30-day window, minimum 3 attempts threshold, and inclusion of unknown categories. These go beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('list categories ranked...'). It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameter details).

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 description covers the main logic but lacks parameter documentation. Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and only one parameter, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 only parameter, top_n (default 5), is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify how to control the number of results or any meaning beyond its default 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?

The description clearly states it lists categories ranked by failure rate with a specific condition (min 3 attempts in 30d) and includes categories with no attempts. This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like register_probe or run_probe.

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 identifying weak spots needing attention but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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