Observability report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds details about the data returned (latency, runtime, cache, storage), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 of 20 words, directly listing the report contents. Every word is informative; no fluff.

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 has an output schema (context provided) and only one optional parameter, the description covers the report's contents and purpose. However, it omits any mention of the parameter, which 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 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter 'includeRecentEvents'. The parameter name and default imply its use, but the description does not explain its effect or how it modifies the report. The description should compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 it returns specific performance data (latency budgets, runtime metrics, etc.) for diagnostics. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on observability; no other sibling mentions these metrics.

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 use 'for performance diagnostics' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., health_check). No when-not-to-use or trade-offs are mentioned.

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