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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the type of historical knowledge returned (incidents, failures, gotchas, constraints) and gives real-world examples, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens when no incidents are found (e.g., empty result). The concrete examples add value, but core behavioral disclosures beyond 'returns' are minimal.

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, front-loaded with a purpose question then a direct statement. The second sentence gives usage timing, and the final sentence provides concrete examples ('Docker bind mount traps, Vault agent write patterns, stale dist/ artifacts, port conflicts'). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description gives enough context for when to use the tool and what kind of insight it provides. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., searching a module with no history) or how it interacts with other context-gathering tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-oriented lookup tool.

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%, with each parameter (module, limit, days_back, code_paths) having a clear description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('past incidents, deploy failures, gotchas, and active constraints for a module or system'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_active_alerts (which would focus on current alerts) and get_constraints (which would list active constraints only) by framing the tool as a historical/tribal knowledge lookup, with concrete example content (Docker bind mount traps, Vault agent patterns).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use BEFORE modifying infrastructure code, deploy scripts, or any module with a history of fragility.' This gives a clear temporal and situational trigger. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of the full 5-point bar.

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