get_failed_tests

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

The description discloses that it resolves a build and materializes logs locally, which are behavioral traits beyond the read-only implication of the name. However, it is unclear if these are side effects or prerequisites, and without annotations, the transparency is incomplete.

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 a single sentence, but it tries to convey multiple actions productively, making it dense and potentially confusing. It could be split into clearer statements.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (beyond 'failed tests'), how to interpret parameters, or how it integrates with other tools for a complete workflow.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning or guidance on how to use them. Parameters like buildRunId, workflowId, buildNumber, buildSelector are not explained in the context of the tool's operation.

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 states 'Resolve a build, ensure logs are materialized locally, and return only the detected failed tests...' which mixes multiple actions beyond just retrieving failed tests. It is vague about the primary function and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_build_logs, get_test_results, and materialize_build_logs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_results or materialize_build_logs. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.

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