query_prometheus

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

The readOnly annotation already signals no mutation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds range-query behavior via range_query/timeframe/step, but does not disclose potential performance costs, auth requirements, or query result shape. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded first sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

For a read-only query tool with a schema covering all parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could be fully complete with a brief note on when to reach for this vs siblings, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

Although the schema has no field descriptions, the Args list explains each parameter meaningfully: query is a PromQL expression, range_query toggles time-series, timeframe sets the range, and step provides format examples. This clearly exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 and resource: 'Execute a raw PromQL query against Prometheus.' The phrase 'raw PromQL query' clearly differentiates this from sibling log, trace, and metric tools, so an agent can deterine its purpose immediately.

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 through 'raw PromQL query' — an agent can infer this is the tool for direct Prometheus queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_pod_metrics or query_logs_custom, and no exclusions are given.

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