jaeger_forecast_capacity

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

The description adds behavioral details (confidence intervals, 7-30 day range) beyond annotations, but contains an inconsistency: it states 'next 7-30 days' while the schema allows days_ahead from 1-90. This misstatement reduces transparency.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: purpose and parameters. It is front-loaded and well-structured, though the range inconsistency could be clarified.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides adequate context (throughput, resource requirements, confidence intervals). The inconsistency in the forecast range is a minor gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info (service name, default days_ahead) but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 7-30 days could mislead regarding the valid range.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: forecasting future throughput and resource requirements for a service. It uses specific verbs (forecast) and nouns (capacity for a service), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like prediction and anomaly detection.

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 implies usage for infrastructure scaling decisions, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or direct users to alternative tools like jaeger_predict_degradation for degradation-specific predictions.

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