observability_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The description does add useful context beyond annotations: the platform-aware scope and the exact categories counted per platform. It does not say what happens when one platform (Prometheus or Grafana) is unreachable or unconfigured, nor how errors are surfaced.

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?

Three short blocks with the purpose front-loaded, platform coverage clearly grouped, and arguments last. Nothing is padded; the only near-redundancy is the '[READ]' tag that mirrors the annotation, but it costs a single token.

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 read-only rollup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, per-platform coverage, and argument semantics. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned snapshot (per-platform keys, partial-failure behavior), which is minor given the annotation already asserts a safe read.

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% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does: 'Target name from config; omit for the default' tells the agent where valid values come from and what omission does. It stops short of naming the default target or showing a config example, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 (health snapshot) plus the exact resources it rolls up, enumerating the metrics per platform: firing-alert count, scrape up/down, rule errors, and Grafana dashboard/datasource/folder counts. This enumeration distinguishes it from narrow siblings such as firing_alerts, datasource_health, and list_dashboards, which cover only one slice.

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 implies a first-pass overview use case but never says when to prefer it over the many specific siblings (firing_alerts, rule_health, datasource_health, etc.) or when to drill down instead. It only gives guidance for the target argument ('omit for the default'), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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