dbt-failed-tests

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

No annotations provided; description mentions grouping and ordering by chronic failure count but does not describe return format, pagination, or confirm read-only 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?

Single, concise sentence (16 words) that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, description explains core functionality but omits return structure details (e.g., fields returned, failure count format).

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% for the single parameter recentRuns with adequate description. The tool description adds little beyond restating the parameter's purpose.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds failed tests across last N runs, grouped and ordered by chronic failure count. Distinct from sibling tools like dbt-list-tests or dbt-get-test.

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?

Implies usage for identifying frequently failing tests, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like failed-tests-summary.

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