Get Failure Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool aggregates over a recent window (implicitly linked to hoursBack) and groups by integration flow. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or what happens when the top limit is exceeded. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but lack important details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the return format (e.g., counts, error details), how the top parameter affects results, or how this summary differs from alternative tools. The agent would need additional information to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only hints at hoursBack ('recent window') and does not explain the 'top' parameter (e.g., limits number of groups, not messages). The grouping is mentioned but not parameterized. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics, which is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 the action ('aggregate'), the resource ('failed/escalated messages'), and the grouping dimension ('by integration flow'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_message_processing_logs or get_mpl_error_information by focusing on a summary/aggregation rather than individual logs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the tool's specificity.

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