observability.health_snapshot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds limited extra behavior: 'bounded' hints at size limits (consistent with schema maxItems=25) but doesn't elaborate on other traits like return format or permission needs.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks additional context that could fit without bloating, making it adequate but not excellent.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete for a basic tool. However, it fails to clarify the 'services' parameter and usage context relative to siblings. It meets the minimum but has notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the services parameter. It says 'for logical services' but omits details like required, format, limits (though schema has them). The schema adds structure, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Return bounded health evidence for logical services' identifies the action (return) and resource (health evidence for logical services). It distinguishes from sibling tools like active_alerts and incident_context, though 'bounded' is ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for health snapshots but doesn't compare with siblings like query_metrics or render_dashboard.

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