dbt-failed-tests

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions grouping and ordering but does not clarify what 'chronic failure count' means, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The behavior beyond the basic purpose is opaque.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, highly concise. However, the brevity sacrifices some informational depth that could aid usability. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should hint at return format or structure. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of tests with counts). The chronic failure grouping and ordering are mentioned but not explained. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it does not reference recentRuns or extractFields. The schema itself provides adequate definitions, so the description adds no extra value.

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 it finds failed tests across N runs, grouped and ordered by chronic failure count. This distinguishes it from siblings like dbt-list-tests (lists all tests) and failed-tests-summary (likely summarizes, not grouped by chronicity).

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 like dbt-list-tests or dq-failed-checks-by-dataset. The description implies a specific use case (chronic failures) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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