weak_spots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the threshold (min 3 attempts in 30d) and inclusion of untested categories, but does not mention ordering direction (descending failure rate), error handling, or any side effects. Behavioral context is partially covered.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb 'List'. It is efficient but could be improved by explicitly mentioning the parameter's effect. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. For a simple tool with one parameter, it covers the selection criteria and both categories. Missing the ordering direction is a minor gap. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 mentions 'ranked' but does not explain that the 'top_n' parameter controls how many categories to return. The parameter's role is only implied by the default value in the schema. Minimal added value over the parameter name.

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 that the tool lists categories ranked by recent failure rate, with a minimum of 3 attempts in 30 days, plus untested probe categories. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_probe or reliability_for.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as reliability_for or run_probe.

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