build_incident_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior — aggregating and ordering logs, metrics, and traces into a timeline — but it does not mention failure modes when one source is unavailable, access/permission needs, rate limits, or whether any correlation logic is applied beyond chronology.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by three compact argument lines. Every sentence earns its place; the arg annotations add out-of-schema value rather than repeating it, and there is zero filler.

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 tool of moderate complexity that aggregates three signal types, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly — all inputs are documented and an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and any sense of edge cases, which leaves the agent to guess when this is the preferred choice among the many observability siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each parameter gets semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare titles — 'Affected service name' for service_name, 'Kubernetes namespace' for namespace, and an explicit valid range (1-1440) for timeframe_minutes. It could add a bit more (e.g., name format requirements), but all three parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a concrete deliverable ('chronological incident timeline'), and the three data sources it combines ('logs, metrics, and traces'), which implies a cross-signal aggregation tool. This differentiates it from siblings that query individual sources such as query_logs_custom, get_trace, or get_pod_metrics, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this tool is for a consolidated chronological view across logs, metrics, and traces, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named or contrasted.

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