Query Davis Problems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the date-bound defaults (last 2h) and the 30d cap, and enumerates the status values, but omits return format, pagination, and the read-only nature implied by 'List'.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core verb and resource lead, followed by filters and constraints.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers status, search, and date bounds but leaves several parameters (around, window, startDate/endDate, connection, allowLongRange) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 high at 82%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default/max range behavior not captured in the schema, but omits the around/window pivot params, connection, and allowLongRange beyond the vague 'max 30d' hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Davis problems'), which is clearly distinct from the singular dynatrace_get_problem sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with triage_problem or triage_scope, leaving some sibling differentiation to inference.

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 the listing use case and surfaces the status filter, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like dynatrace_get_problem or dynatrace_triage_problem. Usage context must be inferred.

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