tie_deviances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details behavior: server-side time filtering, default window of last 24h, pagination, verbose flag, and handling of defaults. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a read query, the provided transparency is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a summary line, explanatory text, then a detailed arg list. It is somewhat long (10+ lines) but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the organization compensates.

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 11 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all parameters and behavior, but it lacks any indication of the return format (e.g., list of deviances, count, fields). For a query tool, this is a gap. It references related endpoints, which helps, but the output structure is missing.

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 description must compensate. It explains all 11 parameters with defaults, constraints (e.g., hours ignored if date_start given), and cross-references (e.g., tie_profiles for profile_id). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default info.

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 explicitly states it finds AD objects with IoE deviances for a checker within a time window, distinguishing itself from siblings by noting it's the time-filterable version. The verb 'Find' and the resource 'IoE deviances' are specific, and the differentiation from tie_deviances_by_checker is clear.

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 explains when to use this tool: for queries with a time window using hours or explicit dates, and defaults to last 24h. It also references related tools like tie_profiles for listing profiles and the reasons endpoint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use alternatives like tie_deviances_by_checker (non-time-filterable), though it implies it.

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