list_parked_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide useful behavioral context: these designs are 'waiting for judgement' and are included only if they failed to converge or were rejected by the physical-validity gate. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or ordering, but 'List' plus the inclusion criteria covers the core behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the definition of 'parked' is compact but informative, and the sibling pointer plus Args section add no redundant content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers what is listed, why the items are parked, how to retrieve details for one item, and the required argument. The output schema handles return shape, so no essential calling information is missing.

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 only parameter is documented as 'The sweep name', which adds a minimal semantic role beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, it does not explain where valid sweep names come from, naming conventions, or behavior for a nonexistent sweep, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('designs a sweep could not resolve on its own'), and the second sentence defines precisely what 'parked' means. It is also clearly distinguished from get_parked_failure, which is for reading one failure's diagnostics.

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 clearly frames this as the overview tool for unresolved sweep results and explicitly directs the agent to get_parked_failure when per-design diagnostics are needed. It does not list exclusion conditions, but the intended use is evident from the context.

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