loki_label_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are 'bounded' and that 'hours' is capped at the tool's max lookback, and notes 'target' is optional. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any side effects beyond the implicit read-only nature signaled by '[READ]'.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a terse Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well. However, it lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools (like 'label_values') and does not mention the expected return format or any special behavior beyond 'bounded.' While not required by an output schema, this information would enhance completeness.

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. The Args section explains each parameter clearly: 'name' with an example, 'hours' noting the max lookback cap, and 'target' indicating it can be omitted for the default. This fully compensates for the missing schema-level descriptions and adds constraints not visible in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Distinct values of one Loki label (bounded).' This is specific with a verb (get distinct values) and resource (Loki label). While sibling tools like 'loki_labels' and 'label_values' exist, the description explicitly scopes to Loki and distinct values, reducing ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings in the description.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'Use this instead of loki_labels for listing label names' or 'Use label_values for Prometheus.' The Args section implies a use case, but no clear context or exclusions are given.

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