service_add_observability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add observability instrumentation' implies a mutating operation but does not say whether it modifies existing code, requires a scaffolded service, sends network calls, demands specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The api_key parameter hints at authentication needs, but the description itself discloses no 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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical efficiently disambiguates the meaning of 'observability' without requiring a second sentence. Every element earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters (including api_key and a stack choice that likely changes behavior dramatically), the description leaves too much unstated. An agent cannot tell whether the service must pre-exist, how the observability_stack choice alters the action, whether api_key is required for all stacks, or what the tool returns.

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 of 3 applies. The schema already explains each parameter, including the observability_stack enum options. The tool description's parenthetical (metrics, logging, tracing) thematically relates to the parameter space but adds no concrete semantic value beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions and enum already provide.

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 a specific verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('observability instrumentation to a service'), and scopes the meaning via the parenthetical (metrics, logging, tracing). It is clearly distinct from service_add_healthcheck and boilerplate generators, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from observability-adjacent siblings like monitor_setup_prometheus or trace_setup_otel.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent facing siblings like grafana_add_alerts, monitor_setup_prometheus, trace_setup_otel, or service_add_healthcheck receives no routing signal about whether to choose this tool or a more specific one, and no mention of preconditions such as requiring an existing service.

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