Get AppDynamics anomaly violations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the behavioral impact of fetchSuspectedCause (heavier response), but omits other behavioral traits like read-only nature, permission requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Significant gaps remain.

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 extremely concise at two sentences with zero wasted words. All critical information is front-loaded, and the fetchSuspectedCause detail is efficiently appended.

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 5 parameters including a complex timeRange union and pagination, the description fails to explain most parameters. It only covers fetchSuspectedCause. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but overall context for effective use is lacking.

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 description adds meaningful context for fetchSuspectedCause, explaining its effect on response size. However, with 60% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like pageSize or the timeRange structure in enough detail. Basic value added but insufficient.

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 'Retrieve anomaly violations for an application within a time window', clearly indicating the verb (retrieve) and resource (anomaly violations for an application). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'appd_get_health_rule_violations' by focusing on anomaly violations versus health rule violations, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 retrieving anomaly violations within a time window, but it does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like 'appd_get_events' or 'appd_get_health_rule_violations'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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