get_recent_failures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds nothing beyond the time-window scope: no ordering, pagination, cap behavior, or what happens when the limit is hit.

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 short sentence with no redundancy and the scope constraint front-loaded. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than bloat, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotation-level detail on returns, the definition needs to explain the limit/integrationFlow behavior and roughly what a 'failure' record contains. The single sentence is inadequate for a filtered-list tool with an undocumented filter parameter.

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 carries the burden for three parameters. It only alludes to 'minutes' and says nothing about the 'limit' cap (default 100, max 500) or what the 'integrationFlow' filter does, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Retrieve failures') plus a scoping constraint ('within the last N minutes'), so the agent knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_failed_messages or analyze_failure, which plausibly return overlapping data.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_failed_messages, get_error_details, or analyze_failure, nor any stated preconditions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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