observability.incident_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true, true, and false respectively, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it 'builds' context, implying computation but not mutation. This provides marginal additional context beyond the 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 a single sentence of 8 words, highly concise and front-loaded. While it sacrifices detail, it contains no unnecessary words, earning a strong score for structure.

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 3 optional parameters, an output schema (unknown content), and sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret results, or how this tool fits into the observability workflow. Completeness is poor.

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 three parameters (alertId, serviceId, includeVisuals) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics; it only loosely relates 'optional visual context' to includeVisuals. The tool fails to guide the agent on how to properly populate the parameters.

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 builds 'bounded health, alert, metric, and optional visual context', which clearly indicates it aggregates multiple observability aspects for incident context. The verb 'build' and resource 'incident context' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_snapshot' or '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'observability.active_alerts' or 'observability.health_snapshot'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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