get_failing_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it notes that 'Step payloads are summarized' and only failing steps are previewed, and it documents the 50-cap on preview_limit. It misses minor details like side-effect absence or error handling, but covers key behaviors effectively.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds value, from the DUT-context to the summarized payload warning, and ends with clean parameter documentation. No fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral constraint (cap). It doesn't address empty-result behavior, but that is minor for this complexity level.

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 schema provides only types and defaults, so the description must add meaning, and it does: result_id is clearly defined as 'Test Monitor result id' and preview_limit as 'Max failing steps to include (capped at 50)', adding the critical cap information absent from the schema.

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 first sentence explicitly states the tool returns failing steps for one test result with measurements versus limits, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'DUT-debug view' adds important context that differentiates it from sibling tools like summarize_yield or query_results, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('This is the DUT-debug view') and implies its role in debugging failing steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, which prevents a higher score.

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