Compare Incident Windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the two comparison modes as behavioral context. It does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or edge cases, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently covers both comparison modes without any waste.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description provides a high-level overview but leaves ambiguity about how parameters configure the two modes (e.g., how to specify adjacent windows). The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the invocation guidance is incomplete, warranting a 3.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that host is the primary host, compare_host enables cross-host comparison, and recent_hours relates to the recent window. However, it leaves limit and end_timestamp unaddressed, relying on the schema's names and defaults. This partial compensation supports a score of 3.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('incident windows'), and distinguishes two clear usage modes: adjacent windows on one host or the same window across two hosts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_to_baseline and get_history.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for comparing adjacent time windows on a single host, or comparing the same recent window across two hosts. This provides clear context without naming excluded scenarios or alternative tools, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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