target_scrape_health

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

With no annotations, the `[READ]` prefix provides some behavioral disclosure, indicating this is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, permission needs, or what happens when an invalid target is given, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and clearly formatted with an Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter, and output. It lacks details like the default target name or output structure, but these are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the target is a Prometheus target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 provides an up/down scrape-health summary plus the list of unhealthy targets, identifying the resource and output. The `[READ]` prefix and mention of 'summary' distinguish it from more analytic siblings like target_scrape_health_analysis, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like target_scrape_health_analysis, dropped_targets, or list_targets. It only explains the target parameter, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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