triage_failure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool provides 'root cause hypotheses and next steps', but does not disclose how the analysis is performed, what data it uses, any limitations, or whether it has side effects. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure for a diagnostic tool.

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 concise sentence that covers the main action and output. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured if it included bullet points or separate lines for usage and behavior.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret the hypotheses, or any prerequisites (e.g., build must have failed). This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter names and schema descriptions are clear, but the tool description is not leveraged to add context.

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's purpose: 'Analyze a failed build and provide root cause hypotheses and next steps'. It specifies the resource (failed build) and the action (analyze and provide hypotheses). This distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like analyze_build_log and get_failed_tests, but could be more specific about the type of 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of sibling tools like analyze_build_log, compare_runs, and detect_flaky_tests, the lack of usage context forces the agent to infer independently.

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