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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that message content is opaque and never interpreted and that results are bounded by count and message length (i.e., truncation behavior), but omits ordering, permissions, and, critically, what happens when time_range is null.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler; the opacity caveat follows the scope statement logically.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the absence of annotations and of any guidance on the required service/environment values or on the null-defaulted time_range leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 on the named properties is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to time_range and max_events but gives no format or default semantics, and the two required parameters (service, environment) are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get log events for a service') and names the dimensions it is bounded by (time range, count, message length). The resource is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_metrics and get_service_health, though it never explicitly routes the agent against them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_metrics or get_operational_snapshot for higher-level views. The bounding clauses describe limits, not when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose output-shaping behavior: deterministic aggregates (min/max/average/last) are always returned, raw points only when include_points=True, and results are bounded. It says nothing about auth requirements, defaults for time_range, or rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two key constraints; almost no filler. The trailing word 'bounded' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what bound applies.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate return fields, and it still usefully flags the conditional raw-points behavior. Given the 0% parameter coverage, it leaves time_range, service, and environment semantics undocumented, which is the main gap.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains metric_names (canonical names from get_services) and include_points, and hints at max_points via 'bounded'. service, environment, and time_range semantics (inclusive start / exclusive end, default) are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Get metric series for a service'), which naturally separates it from siblings like get_logs or get_service_health that operate on different resources. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling or contrasting scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: metric_names must be canonical names obtained from get_services' available_metrics, effectively telling the agent to call get_services first. It does not state when to prefer get_metrics over get_operational_snapshot or get_service_health, so no exclusions are covered.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: each section reports status independently, a failure or unconfigured capability in one section never hides others, and it reports facts only, never root cause. These are genuinely useful operational traits. It still omits what 'bounded' means concretely, permission/auth requirements, and volume limits for logs and metrics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by two high-value behavioral notes. No filler, and each sentence adds information about scope or behavior rather than restating the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description adequately covers purpose and partial-failure semantics. However, for an aggregation tool with three parameters and 0% schema coverage, the absence of parameter semantics and any guidance on choosing it over its four siblings leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'for a service' gestures at the required service parameter, but environment, the optional time_range, and the default-null behavior are unexplained. The nested TimeRange carries its own schema description, but nothing in the tool description clarifies how parameters shape the snapshot.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get an operational snapshot for a service) and enumerates the four content areas: deployments, metrics, logs, and health. This maps cleanly onto the four sibling tools, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings (e.g., 'use this instead of calling get_logs/get_metrics separately'), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 word 'bounded' hints at a scoped overview use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the sibling alternatives it aggregates. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this tool over get_recent_deployments + get_logs + get_metrics + get_service_health.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Bounded by time/count' gestures at limiting behavior, but it never says what happens when time_range or max_events are omitted (both default to null), whether there is a server-side default window, or what the ordering/recency guarantee is. Read-only intent is only implied by the verb 'get'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier follows the core action. It is efficient, though 'bounded by time/count' is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the read-only nature of a 'get' tool is largely self-evident. Still, with zero annotations and two nullable tuning parameters, the description omits default-window behavior and the required environment parameter, leaving the agent to infer invocation semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers 'service' and loosely maps 'time/count' onto time_range and max_events, but the required 'environment' parameter is never mentioned and no defaults or format details are supplied (the UTC/inclusive-start semantics live only in the nested schema).

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?

States a clear verb (get) and resource (recent deployment events) plus scope (for a service, bounded by time/count), which distinguishes it from get_logs, get_metrics, and get_service_health. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'recent' hints at a use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_logs, get_metrics, or get_operational_snapshot, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer everything about tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the signal is provider-reported and never inferred, which tells the agent this is authoritative provenance rather than a derived heuristic. It still omits freshness, auth requirements, failure/unknown states, and error semantics for a tool whose entire value is a status signal.

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 clause, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the one qualifier that matters. Nothing is padded and nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is structurally simple with only two params. Still, with zero annotations and zero parameter coverage, the definition leaves the agent without usage context or argument semantics, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

Both parameters (service, environment) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning — it does not clarify identifier format, environment naming, or whether defaults exist. For a 2-param required tool at zero coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific resource (a service's health signal) and its provenance, so an agent can distinguish it from get_logs, get_metrics, or get_recent_deployments. However, there is no explicit verb and no named sibling to route against, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_operational_snapshot or get_metrics. The agent is left to infer that this is the health-check counterpart to the other read tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list but does not state authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a list operation, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description omits filtering behavior (environment) and result limiting (max_services), leaving the agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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 description does not mention the environment or max_services parameters at all. With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('services') plus the returned data ('capabilities configured for each'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as get_operational_snapshot, so it misses the top score.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are named. Sibling tools like get_service_health or get_operational_snapshot are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this inventory tool is appropriate.

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