get_component_uptime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns daily uptime history for a given period, but does not disclose aspects like read-only nature, rate limits, or data aggregation. The presence of an output schema partly compensates for return format, but behavioral constraints are missing.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential details (example, period options, source for component_id). Excellent clarity in minimal space.

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 (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, parameters (with details), and how to obtain component_id. No critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the period parameter's allowed values and default. It also tells the source for component_id. However, the slug parameter is not described (likely the service slug). Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states it retrieves daily uptime history for a single component, distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_components_uptime (multiple components) and get_service_uptime (whole service). It provides a concrete example ('API' component of Stripe) and valid period options.

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 instructs users to get component IDs from list_service_components, helping them prepare parameters. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (per-component uptime) vs alternatives. No explicit '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.