get_failure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is a traceback plus code, which is useful content-level context. It does not say what happens if object_id points at a non-failed object, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence with the payload front-loaded ahead of the eligible input types. It is efficiently sized, though the trailing 'or of a failed candidate of a comparison' clause is slightly convoluted.

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?

The tool is a simple read with an output schema and full parameter documentation, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers what is fetched and from which object; only the failure case for a successful/non-failed id is unaddressed.

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 100%, so both candidate and object_id are already documented in the schema (failure_id or comparison id). The description restates that a failed comparison candidate is a valid target but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the traceback and the code for a failed run or a failed comparison candidate. That is concrete and distinguishable from the raw code-retrieval sibling get_code. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer it over get_code or describe_object.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The phrase 'of a failed run or of a failed candidate of a comparison' hints at the eligible inputs but leaves the agent to infer that this is the debugging entry point versus get_code or describe_object.

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