log_error_burst_rca

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits: it pulls two windows, classifies bursts into types, produces a cause+action, and explicitly warns that it is an 'Advisory heuristic' requiring verification against raw logs. Since there are no annotations, this is a strong disclosure that goes well beyond the structured data.

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 structured with a summary line, a methodology paragraph, an advisory note, and an Args section. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; however, it could be slightly tighter. The first line effectively front-loads the purpose.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, algorithm, and the heuristic nature, but it does not provide a detailed output format or return value structure. It mentions classifications and 'cause + action' but not how they are presented, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section explaining each parameter beyond the schema's type-only definitions. It clarifies that selector is a Loki stream selector, hours is the window length for both current and baseline (capped), and loki_target is optional with a config default. With 0% schema description coverage, this is essential and well-done.

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 an error burst: current window vs baseline, per stream.' This clearly states the tool's function (root-cause analysis) and resource (error bursts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_volume_analysis or loki_query.

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 explains the analysis approach (current vs baseline windows, classifications) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The context implies it is for error burst RCA, and the advisory note suggests verifying against raw logs, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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