get_failure_modes

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied read operation ('Get'). It fails to disclose return format, whether results are cached, authentication requirements, or whether failure patterns include historical or theoretical data.

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?

Extremely concise at 6 words with verb-fronted structure. While efficient and waste-free, this brevity contributes to underspecification. However, the single sentence does earn its place by conveying the core operation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what failure patterns are returned and their structure. It also omits operational context needed for a retrieval tool (rate limits, data freshness). Incomplete for production use.

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% (slug is fully documented as 'Service slug to get failure modes for'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely confirming the slug identifies a service rather than adding format constraints or examples.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('failure patterns'/'failure modes') with scope ('for a service'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_capability' or 'discover_capabilities' which handle service operations rather than failure analysis.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to query failure modes vs executing a capability), no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions or error conditions described.

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