Get Health Rule Violations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's verb 'retrieve' is consistent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the return format: 'Array of health rule violations with severity, status, affected entity, and timestamps.' It does not contradict annotations. A higher score would require disclosure of potential limitations like pagination or rate limits.

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 very concise: two short paragraphs and a bulleted list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provides essential usage details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects or output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return format and key fields. It does not cover edge cases or error responses, but the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) provide safety assurances. A score of 5 would require addressing potential errors or performance implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter section essentially restates the schema descriptions (e.g., 'App name or ID. Omit for all apps.' and 'Lookback window in minutes (default: 1440 = 24h)'). It adds no new meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so no points above baseline.

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 purpose: 'Retrieve health rule violations for a specific application or all applications.' It specifies the resource (health rule violations) and the action (retrieve), and distinguishes from siblings like appd_get_health_rules (which retrieves rules, not violations). The optional application parameter and default behavior are explicitly mentioned.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including the optional application parameter and default lookback window. It explains that omitting application returns violations for all apps. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though the sibling list and name make the distinction clear.

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