analyze_alert

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'deterministic', 'resilient', and confirmation that it returns probable cause, suggested actions, and related events. This goes beyond the basic read-only annotation.

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?

Front-loads the [READ] marker and the core purpose, then adds behavioral guarantees, then documents parameters in a compact Args block. No wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly mentions the return shape (probable cause, suggested actions, related events). It covers safety, behavior, and parameters. Missing only explicit comparison to sibling RCA tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that alert_ext_id comes from alert_list, which is useful relational context, and that target is a Prism Central target name from config with a default fallback. This is considerably more guidance than the bare schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Root-cause analysis: correlate an alert with recent same-entity events.' This clearly distinguishes it from alert_list (which lists) and from cluster_health_rca/alert_triage_rca (which are sibling RCA tools).

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?

Explains what the tool does and notes it is 'safe to run on a live, alerting cluster,' which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alert_triage_rca or cluster_health_rca, which are the most likely alternatives in the sibling set.

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