enrich_alert

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the composite output (logs, metrics, traces, recommendations), which is informative. However, it does not state that this is a read-only aggregation, whether it is costly/slow when aggregating multiple systems, or what happens when the alert is not found. Partially transparent.

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?

A single front-loaded summary sentence captures purpose and output, followed by a compact Args block. Every line adds meaning the schema lacks, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Purpose and parameters are well covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotations and a large sibling set, the missing routing guidance and the absence of safety/cost disclosure leave notable gaps. This is a minimum-viable definition rather than a complete one.

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%, and the description fully compensates by giving every argument a semantic gloss: alert_name ('Name of the alert that fired'), service_name ('Affected service name'), namespace ('Kubernetes namespace'), and timeframe_minutes ('Context window in minutes (1-60)'), including a range constraint not present in the schema.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Enrich'), a clear resource ('an alert'), and a concrete outcome ('full context: recent logs, metrics, traces, and recommendations'). The multi-source aggregation nature implicitly distinguishes it from the single-source siblings like query_logs_custom, get_trace, and get_pod_metrics.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'Enrich an alert' implies the trigger condition (a fired alert), but the description never names alternatives or explains when a single-source tool such as get_trace or analyze_logs would be preferable, despite 22 siblings.

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