Security Events Summary

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 does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema: results are always aggregated, so the agent should not expect raw event rows or pagination. It says nothing about auth/connection requirements, cardinality limits, or the default range cap that allowLongRange hints at.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and aggregation constraint front-loaded. It is arguably terse for a 10-parameter tool, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description's implication that results are counts broken down by provider/type/risk level is the main hint about the return shape, which is useful but thin. For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and an undocumented entityIdsOrNames parameter, more behavioral and usage context would be warranted.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (time window forms, connection, extraFilter, allowLongRange); the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or interaction, and entityIdsOrNames has no description in either place.

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 names a specific verb (summarize), a specific resource (security.events), and the grouping dimensions (provider, type, risk level), so the agent knows this is an aggregation over security events rather than a raw-event query. It is distinguishable from dynatrace_execute_dql or dynatrace_vulnerabilities, though it never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce that contrast.

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?

"Always aggregated" implicitly tells the agent this tool cannot return individual events, which implies that raw-event or custom-DQL needs should go to dynatrace_execute_dql. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when it should be preferred over dynatrace_vulnerabilities or dynatrace_compliance_findings, and no exclusion guidance.

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