alert_and_capacity_rca

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail: it reports non-dismissed alerts at WARNING+ only, datasets at 80%/90% of quota/available ceiling, and orders findings worst-first with the measured level/percent cited. It does not cover auth requirements, target resolution failures, or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-word read marker followed immediately by the outcome, then the mechanics. The trailing Args block largely restates the schema, which is mild redundancy, but the body itself is tight and every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description sketches the return shape (one finding per alert, one per dataset, worst-first, each citing the measured value) and the read-only nature is declared. Only operational caveats — what happens if the target is unreachable or if no alerts qualify — are absent.

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 schema gives only an untyped nullable string with default null, so the description carries the load — and does so: 'target: TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default.' That resolves both meaning and the null/omit behavior for the single 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?

States a specific verb ('Surface') and two concrete resources (active TrueNAS alerts by level, datasets near full), plus how it composes them ('collects the active alert list and the /pool/dataset listing'). It is distinguishable from alert_list and dataset_list by its aggregation/RCA semantics, though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the aggregation framing (reach for this when you want a combined alert-plus-capacity health view), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of alert_list/dataset_list when...' statement and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the choice against siblings to inference.

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