get_parked_failure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by listing exactly what is returned: solver status, error-level diagnostics, tails of .sta/.msg, input-processor errors, validity verdict, attempted fixes, and the deck itself. It also clarifies how deck_chars truncates the .inp. It does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free or mention auth/rate limits, but the 'Returns...' framing strongly implies a read-only diagnostic.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a compact list of return contents and an Args block. Each sentence adds information and there is no repetition or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers why to call it, what it returns, and what each parameter means. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of needing to detail return types. The only gap is the absence of when-to-prefer-it over close siblings.

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 Args section must compensate; it gives a meaningful one-line explanation for each parameter. 'sweep: The sweep name' and 'deck_chars: How much of the .inp to include' add semantics beyond the bare schema. It could be stronger with format or constraints, but it is adequate for a 3-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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full diagnostics for one parked design' and then lists exactly what is returned. It clearly differentiates from list_parked_failures by being scoped to a single parked design and by focusing on diagnostics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope and return list make the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'to reason about before fixing' gives an explicit usage context: use this when you need to understand a parked failure prior to applying a fix. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so an agent is left to infer the boundary against list_parked_failures, inspect_deck, or check_validity.

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