group_alerts_by_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds that it groups alerts and returns AlertGroupResult, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), rate limits, or pagination. The additional behavioral context is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, bullet-pointed use cases, examples, and return type. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 (cover return type) and annotations (cover safety), the description covers purpose and usage well. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a notable gap that affects completeness. Overall adequate but with clear deficiency.

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 does not explain the 'instance' or 'instances' parameters. Their meaning (filtering vs. all instances) is ambiguous. The agent must infer from default null values and tool name. This is a significant gap for effective parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb 'group' with resource 'alerts by service', clearly stating its function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alertmanager_list_alert_groups (which lists groups without service-level grouping) and alertmanager_list_alerts. Examples further clarify its purpose.

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 'Use this to' section provides explicit scenarios (understand affected services, focus response, identify services with multiple alerts). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. For better guidance, it could note that for listing all alerts without grouping, alertmanager_list_alerts is appropriate.

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