Get AppDynamics anomaly violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes that including suspected cause results in a heavier response, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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, the description need not detail return values, but it omits the default time range behavior and pagination details, which are important for agent usage. It is minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 60%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It highlights fetchSuspectedCause but does not elaborate on other parameters like timeRange defaults or pageNumber indexing.

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 retrieves anomaly violations for an application within a time window, with an option to include suspected cause. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like appd_get_health_rule_violations by focusing on anomaly violations.

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 mentions when to use fetchSuspectedCause but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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