get_all_components_uptime

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains that the tool returns data keyed by component ID over a period, and notes it's for leaf components. This is sufficient but lacks details on rate limits, idempotency, or any side effects.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and key details, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, description does not need to detail return values, but it does mention 'keyed by component ID'. For a list tool, this is adequate. Could add a note about the output schema or pagination.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description explains both parameters: 'slug' (implied as catalog service) and 'period' with allowed values and default. Adds meaningful guidance beyond schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'daily uptime history for every leaf component of a catalog service', and scope 'in one call, keyed by component ID'. It also differentiates from sibling tool get_component_uptime by recommending this for comparing components.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated get_component_uptime calls when comparing components.' Also specifies valid period values and default. Does not list when not to use, but context is clear.

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