get_golden_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it automatically selects between Prometheus (windowed) and Actuator (cumulative), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if both providers are unavailable, how 'best' is determined, or whether there are any side effects or rate limits. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 that is clear and front-loaded with the core metrics. It is concise with no filler. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) to separate the providers and the per-endpoint aspect, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not describe the return format or structure beyond listing the metric types, nor does it mention any prerequisites, error handling, or pagination. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover.

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 100%, so all three parameters (window, service, namespace) already have descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond that, only referencing the time window concept but not clarifying format or constraints. The description does not compensate for the low need since coverage is high, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns request rate, error rate, latency percentiles, and per-endpoint data. It names two providers (Prometheus and Actuator) which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_endpoint_metrics or query_metrics, which could also return similar metrics. The verb 'get' and resource 'golden signals' is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling like get_actuator_health or query_metrics would be more appropriate. The phrase 'best available provider' implies automatic selection but doesn't explain when to prefer this tool over others.

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