get_prometheus_label_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational characteristics.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward function and well-documented schema.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list of values? structured response?), doesn't mention behavioral aspects like performance or limitations, and provides no usage context. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between start/end parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Get all values') and resource ('for a specific label from a Prometheus datasource'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_prometheus_labels' or 'get_loki_label_values', but the specificity of 'Prometheus' and 'label values' provides inherent distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prometheus_labels' (which likely lists label names) or 'get_loki_label_values' (for Loki datasources). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for usage.

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