observability.health_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds 'bounded', implying some limit, but does not explain how that manifests. No contradiction with annotations.

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 too sparse—a single, vague sentence. While short, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not convey enough meaning.

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 has one required parameter and no parameter documentation in the description, the context provided is inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the input semantics or the nature of 'bounded health evidence'.

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 input schema has a single required 'services' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter, its purpose, format, or behavior. It only vaguely mentions 'for logical services', which is insufficient to inform an AI agent about what to 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 the tool returns 'bounded health evidence for logical services', which gives a general sense of the purpose but uses vague terms like 'bounded' and 'logical services' that lack clarity. It does not effectively distinguish from siblings like 'observability.active_alerts' or 'observability.query_metrics'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'observability.incident_context' or 'observability.query_metrics'. There are no conditions, exclusions, or contextual hints for selection.

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