it_ops_rightsizing_recommendations

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope routing, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., does it generate recommendations, modify resources?), rate limits, or what happens on invocation. The agent is left guessing about outcomes.

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 short (two sentences plus arg docs), but it is not optimally structured. Key information (the purpose of the action) is missing, and it does not front-load the most critical details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described, but the description still lacks essential context: what rightsizing recommendations are, what the action does, how the free-text message is used, and what structured inputs are expected. For a tool with two undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. While this adds some meaning, it remains generic and does not specify expected content or format beyond the schema's defaults.

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 states it runs a domain agent action named 'rightsizing_recommendations', but does not define what rightsizing recommendations are or how they differ from sibling tools like it_ops_analyze_cost or it_ops_detect_waste. The purpose is vague; an agent cannot determine when to invoke this over similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not usage context.

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