aggregate_suite_failures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states key behaviors: parsing, grouping by error signature, deduplicating repeated errors, and categorizing into four specific types. It does not mention return format or side effects, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds behavioral detail, then a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to convey both input handling and expected results. While it explains the grouping/categorization logic, it omits details like the output structure and does not mention the extensibility via customInfraPatterns. The description is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, and it does not reference parameters like customInfraPatterns or runId. It neither enhances nor harms the semantic understanding.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Parse a CI test run and group failures by error signature') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing its deduplication and categorization behaviors (assertion, timeout, network, crash). This uniquely positions it as an aggregation/pre-processing tool.

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 a clear usage context with 'Use this as the first step before triage,' implying it precedes other analysis tools. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of the top anchor.

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