correlate_trace

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the disclosure burden. It clearly signals a non-mutating reporting operation ('report', 'detected against'), names the output payload, and explains the Dynatrace relative timeframe syntax. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/permission assumptions, hence not a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core behavior and timeframe syntax are front-loaded, and the use-case statement is a valuable final anchor.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the entity-ID prerequisite, the timeframe dialect, and the expected result categories. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates: dynatrace_entity_id is sourced via find_dynatrace_entity, and timeframe is documented with Dynatrace relative syntax and examples. It stops short of noting the default value or allowable units, but the schema provides the default.

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?

States a specific operation ('report') on a Dynatrace entity and defines the output: identity/tags plus problems, root cause, evidence, within a timeframe. The closing quote directly ties the tool to a high-level diagnostic question, distinguishing it from the Kubernetes/Dynatrace siblings.

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?

Explicitly frames the intended question: 'This is the tool for "does the unhealthy deployment line up with a known Dynatrace problem".' It also routes the agent to find_dynatrace_entity when an entity ID is still needed, covering the prerequisite case.

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