fleet_health

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral semantics beyond that: severity is policy metadata not impact or confidence, INDETERMINATE has a bounded rejection category, rejection severity HIGH means no trustworthy verdict, NO_DATA must be distinguished from INDETERMINATE, and advice is approval-required and non-executable. This effectively discloses how to interpret outputs and what not to claim.

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 a long, dense paragraph of caveats with no structural organization. While each sentence carries warning value, the accumulation of overlapping disclaimers (severity, rejection, no inference) obscures the core function and makes it hard to scan. The key purpose is buried under behavioral restrictions.

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 description provides rich interpretative context for outputs: point evaluation, severity semantics, INDETERMINATE categories, NO_DATA distinction, and non-executable advice. However, it fails to state what the tool actually returns and does not document the 'at' parameter's semantics. Given the output schema exists, the description covers many caveats but leaves a meaningful gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 only parameter 'at' has no schema description, and the description does not explicitly explain its format or meaning. The phrase 'Point tools return a point evaluation' weakly implies the parameter selects a point in time, but it never confirms that 'at' is a timestamp or describes accepted formats. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more directly; it provides only marginal added meaning.

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 does not clearly state a specific verb and resource (e.g., 'Get fleet health at a point in time'). It opens with 'Trusted-local, non-production, non-live read-only simulation' and mentions 'Point tools return a point evaluation,' which implies the purpose but relies heavily on the tool name. The contrast with investigate_timeline helps, but the primary function remains vague.

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 distinguishes this tool from investigate_timeline by noting the half-open [frm, to) window versus point evaluation, and warns against inferring transitions or root causes. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the siblings or provides clear exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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