ck_observability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds specific excluded actions (no benchmark execution, draft approval, etc.), which adds minor context beyond the annotations but is not essential since annotations already cover safety 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then clarifying read-only nature. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the report list from behavioral constraints, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 21 report types), the description covers the broad purpose and read-only constraint but does not fully detail how parameters interact with specific reports. The list of reports is not exhaustive (covers about half of enum options). With an output schema present, return values are documented, but usage guidance remains incomplete.

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 89% (most parameters have descriptions). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only lists some report types loosely. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description adds minimal incremental value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a clear verb 'Read' and specifies the resource 'local observability reports' with a comprehensive list of report types. It explicitly states read-only behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform mutations (e.g., ck_delegate, ck_execute_code). The negation of actions like benchmark execution and promotion mutation further clarifies its scope.

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 implicitly indicates it is for reading observability data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specific alternatives among the many siblings. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the read-only hint and report list.

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