alert_and_capacity_rca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]', specifies filtering criteria (non-dismissed, WARNING+, 80%/90% thresholds), and describes the worst-first ordering and output content. It does not mention error handling or return format, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 compact yet thorough, starting with a clear summary line, then explaining the data sources and reporting criteria in two sentences, followed by an args section. No wasted words; the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively explains what the tool returns (one finding per active alert and per near-full dataset, with level/percent) and the input parameter. It could specify the exact return format, but the described behavior is sufficient for an RCA diagnostic tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'target' as 'TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'target' field and clarifies default behavior.

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: 'Surface active TrueNAS alerts by level and datasets near full.' It specifies the resources (active alerts, dataset listing) and the combined purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like alert_list and dataset_list which handle each separately.

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 for a combined alert/capacity diagnostic but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context from 'Collects the active alert list and the /pool/dataset listing' implies a combined view, but no direct guidance on selection is given.

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