query_fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'return merged results' and a prerequisite, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any error behavior. The query nature implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, and efficiently lists actions with key details in a parenthetical format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 4 actions, no output schema), the description covers the prerequisite, action semantics, and parameter highlights. It omits return format or examples, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining each action (e.g., 'causal chains sorted by severity'), defaults for since and limit, aliases for sql/query, and the purpose of tsc, pid, etc. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 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 clearly states 'Query multiple Ingero nodes and return merged results' with a specific verb and resource. It lists four distinct actions (chains, ops, overview, sql) with parenthetical explanations, distinguishing it from single-node tools like get_causal_chains or run_sql. The prerequisite 'Requires fleet.nodes configured' further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage for multi-node queries via the prerequisite and action listing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_causal_chains for a single node). It provides clear context but no exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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