rule_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It includes '[READ]' to indicate a read-only operation and states the output type ('health summary + list of erroring rules'). However, it does not detail what constitutes 'health', what an 'erroring rule' includes, or any potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the target parameter. The description adds some value but leaves room for more disclosure.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a single-line Args section. It is front-loaded with '[READ]' and immediately conveys the tool's function. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but lacks detail on the return format and the meaning of 'health summary.' It does not explain what the list of erroring rules contains (e.g., names, severities). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally complete but has clear gaps in output expectations and usage context.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful context about what the parameter is for and how to use it, which the schema alone does not provide. The explanation is clear and sufficient for this simple parameter.

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 function: 'Rule-evaluation health summary + the list of erroring rules.' The '[READ]' prefix acts as a verb indicating a read operation, and the resource (rule evaluation health) is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_rules or target_scrape_health.

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 usage through its title and content—if you need rule evaluation health, use this tool—and provides parameter-level guidance ('target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_rules) or provide exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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