observability.incident_context

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safety. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the word 'build,' which aligns with the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, but too brief to be informative. It earns its place but could be more structured without adding length.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the bounded nature, return value, or how inputs relate to context building.

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%. The description only indirectly mentions 'optional visual context' for the includeVisuals parameter, but does not explain alertId or serviceId. The enum values for includeVisuals are not described.

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 uses the verb 'Build' and mentions 'bounded health, alert, metric, and optional visual context,' which suggests aggregation but is vague. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like health_snapshot or query_metrics. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like active_alerts, health_snapshot, or render_dashboard. The description does not specify prerequisites or context.

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