analyze_alert

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

Without annotations, the description effectively communicates that the tool is read-only via the '[READ]' prefix and states it is 'Resilient and deterministic — safe to run on a live, alerting cluster'. This adds confidence but lacks information on error behaviors, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the read assurance.

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 concise (three sentences plus two parameter lines) and well-structured: a summary, a results line, a safety line, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (probable cause, suggested actions, related events), which is adequate for a moderately complex tool. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the output, nor does it cover error scenarios or prerequisites beyond obtaining the alert_ext_id. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining alert_ext_id as 'Alert extId as returned by alert_list' and target as 'Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default'. This gives the agent actionable context for parameter values.

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 performs root-cause analysis by correlating an alert with recent same-entity events, and specifies the output (probable cause, suggested actions, related events). This distinctly separates it from siblings like alert_list (listing) and alert_acknowledge/resolve (action-oriented), and even from alert_triage_rca by emphasizing event correlation.

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 implies the tool is for deep analysis of a single alert, indicated by 'Root-cause analysis', and states it is safe to run on live clusters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with alternatives like alert_triage_rca or event_list. More explicit guidance would improve utility.

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