run_summary

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 discloses the core behavior (summarising recent run, test failure count and names) and the 'most recent' scope. It doesn't detail side effects, but for a read-only summary, this is adequate.

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 action and key output. The second sentence adds actionable usage context without unnecessary detail. Very concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple and zero-parameter. The description covers purpose, scope, and usage order. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed in the description. The guidance to use first provides necessary context for a health-check step.

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 schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 tool summarises the most recent dbt run, specifically how many tests failed and their names. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_failing_tests and sample_failing_rows.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first to judge overall health before drilling into any one failure, providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying it precedes more detailed tools.

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