ketan_explain_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 discloses that it 'traces the exact execution chain' and returns a 'clean message' when no failures exist, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or mention any potential side effects. For a read-only explanation tool, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, behavior, and edge case handling. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, and the no-failure case. It lacks an explicit statement of non-mutation, which could be inferred but is not stated, so a slight deduction.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but no parameters exist to document, so no gap is present.

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 function: 'Get a root-cause explanation of the most recent failure in the CTG.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (root-cause explanation), and it distinguishes from siblings like ketan_get_status and ketan_get_checkpoints by focusing on failure explanation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when there is a recent failure to explain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous, which satisfies a clear-context score without explicit comparisons.

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