firing_alert_rca

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 marks the operation as [READ][analysis] and states it is an 'advisory heuristic — verify before acting,' disclosing that results are not authoritative. It also explains the process of pulling alerts and rules and produces cause+action, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose. The first line is a compact summary, followed by a brief explanation and then the parameter documentation. There is minor redundancy between the first line and the second paragraph (both mention joining/matching), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 is a read-only analysis tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers its purpose, process, output (likely cause and action), and warns about heuristic accuracy. It does not detail return format but that is not necessary for this type of tool. Additional info like specific permission requirements is absent, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has zero descriptions and only one optional parameter 'target.' The description compensates fully by stating 'target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default,' which clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare anyOf/null definition.

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 '[READ][analysis] Root-cause firing alerts: join each to its rule expr → cause+action.' This uses a specific verb ('root-cause') and resource ('firing alerts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like firing_alerts or list_rules. The process of joining alerts with rule expressions is also described.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. The purpose is implied by the tool name and the first line, but no direct guidance is given about choosing this over firing_alerts, list_rules, or rule_health. It only cautions that it's an advisory heuristic, so score a 3 for implied usage.

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