query_fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions merged results and prerequisites but lacks detail on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior of actions like 'sql' is only hinted at ('raw SQL fan-out with node column').

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 short (two sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, prerequisites, and action descriptions. 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?

While the description covers prerequisites and action types, it omits details like default limit, required permissions, pagination, or what happens on error. With no output schema and no annotations, it could be more comprehensive for a complex tool with 7 parameters.

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%, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining each action value (e.g., 'chains (causal chains sorted by severity)') and noting default compression (tsc). This helps the agent understand parameter semantics.

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 the tool queries multiple Ingero nodes and returns merged results, with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('multiple Ingero nodes'). It also lists distinct actions (chains, ops, overview, sql), distinguishing it from siblings like get_causal_chains or run_sql.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires fleet.nodes configured in ingero.yaml') and briefly explains each action's purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_causal_chains or run_sql, leaving usage context implicit.

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