get_failures

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are enriched with source context around each failure, but says nothing about read-only safety, large-run behavior, pagination, or what happens when a run has no failures.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the enriching detail (source context) is appended efficiently. No wasted 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral and return information. It covers the gist of the returned data but omits the failure record shape, result limits, and error conditions, leaving clear gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'runId' including its origin from run_tests/run_affected. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed failure information for a test run') and adds scope with 'including source context around each failure.' It is clearly distinguishable from run_tests or list_runs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_test_detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. The phrase 'for a test run' weakly implies it is called after a run, but nothing tells an agent when to prefer this over get_test_detail or rerun_failed.

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