wafle_system_queue_failed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's additional detail that results include the 'last error' adds behavioral context beyond those annotations. No contradiction exists; the description aligns with the read-only and idempotent nature.

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 two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds a useful pairing note. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what jobs are listed and what error information is included, and the schema fills in the limit parameter. The pairing note gives practical context for a 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 single parameter 'limit' is self-explanatory in the schema with type, default, min, and max, so the description's omission is not a major gap. However, with 0% schema description coverage, a brief mention in the description could have added a bit more clarity, but the schema already suffices.

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 clearly states the action ('List failed queue jobs') and the detail included ('with their last error'). The name 'wafle_system_queue_failed' is reinforced, and the sibling reference to retry helps distinguish this tool from related queue operations.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it by focusing on failed jobs and the last error, and the pairing note with wafle_system_queue_retry suggests a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other queue tools like wafle_system_queue_stats, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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