jaeger_predict_degradation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safe profile. The description adds value by detailing the analysis approach (historical trace data, critical path trends, anomaly detection) and the prediction horizon (2-24 hours), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies behavioral traits.

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 a clear structure: purpose sentence, analysis approach, parameter list, and return overview. Every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, input parameters, and return value (degradation forecast, confidence, recommendations), fitting the context well.

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%, with both 'service' and 'hours_back' having descriptions and constraints. The description repeats these but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 predicts potential performance degradation events for a service, using historical trace data. The verb 'predict' and resource 'degradation' are specific, and the content distinguishes it from siblings like jaeger_detect_anomalies or jaeger_forecast_capacity by focusing on forecasting issues 2-24 hours in advance.

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 predicting degradation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like anomaly detection or capacity forecasting. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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