Query AppDynamics Analytics Events (ADQL)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it runs queries and requires configuration, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, describe rate limits, or explain what happens in multi-query mode (e.g., ordering, concurrency). The 'Requires' note is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and modes. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, modes, and prerequisite configuration. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema with 5 parameters and a timeRange object, but the description does not explain when to use each mode or how the limit parameter interacts with multi-query mode. Sibling tools exist but no cross-references are provided. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are partly covered. Overall, the description leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the two modes and the configuration requirement, which provides context beyond what the schema offers (e.g., that query and queries are mutually exclusive). This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 runs ADQL queries against the Events Service and explicitly defines two modes (single string and array of up to 20 objects). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like appd_get_events (which fetches events differently) and appd_query_metrics (which queries metrics, not analytics events).

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 required configuration variables and two modes, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., appd_get_events for simpler retrieval, appd_query_metrics for metric queries). It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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