get_failed_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'get list of failed tests with error details' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any potential side effects, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, short sentence that is to the point and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with the inclusion of parameter defaults or output format hints.

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 is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the difference between 'summary' and 'full' formats, how errors are ordered or truncated, or behavior on empty results. The tool deals with lists, so pagination or limit details would be helpful.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'with error details', which hints at the output but does not add significant semantics beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. Each parameter is well-described in the schema.

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 tool retrieves a list of failed tests with error details from a build. It uses a specific verb and resource, and indirectly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_test_report or compare_test_results by focusing on failed tests and error details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative.

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