Get local observability

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: outputs are bounded, secret-free, and never leave the process. This gives the agent a meaningful behavioral model for safety and privacy without contradicting the annotations.

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 single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, names the output formats, and ends with an important privacy guarantee. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, full schema description coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies scope, privacy, security, and output formats, so an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the format and directory parameters. The description adds a little color by mentioning structured JSON and Prometheus text export, but it does not materially deepen the meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('bounded local metrics, runtime counters, and secret-free audit status'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'local' and 'no telemetry leaves the process.' This makes it easy for an agent to understand what get_observability does and how it differs from wide-area or server-focused tools.

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 gives a clear context of use: local observability data without network egress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it strongly implies the boundary between local metrics and other tools. This earns a 4 rather than a 5 because no explicit sibling routing or exclusion is provided.

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