firing_alert_rca

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine context by labeling this an 'Advisory heuristic — verify before acting', which tells the agent the cause/action output is non-authoritative. It does not cover pagination, limits, or return shape, but the advisory caveat is meaningful added value.

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-loaded with the [READ][analysis] tag and a one-line summary; the follow-up sentence and Args block stay tight. Minor redundancy where 'Pulls firing alerts + alerting rules, matches them' restates the first line's join description.

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?

With no output schema and only readOnlyHint, the description covers the input, the internal mechanism, and the advisory nature of the result — enough to invoke and interpret it correctly. Only return-format/pagination specifics are absent, which is acceptable given the tool's focused scope.

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 0% for the single optional 'target' param, so the description must carry it: it explains that target is a Prometheus target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That fully compensates for the undocumented schema, though it adds no format/validation detail.

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+resource (root-cause firing alerts) plus the mechanism (join each alert to its rule expr to produce cause+action). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'firing_alerts' which merely lists them, and from other *_rca siblings by naming the alert domain.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and body — use it to diagnose firing alerts — and the 'target ... omit for the default' note gives a calling hint. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over firing_alerts, alert_noise_and_flap_analysis, or log_error_burst_rca, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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