Service Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states which metrics are returned but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, default time-range behavior, aggregation, limits, or how the multiple time parameters interact, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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, waste-free sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though the fragment style lacks a clear verb and could have been slightly more front-loaded as an action statement.

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 11 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does name the returned metrics, but it does not explain return format, aggregation, time-window semantics, or how service, workload, and namespace parameters relate, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how from/to, startDate/endDate, and around/window should be chosen or combined.

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 identifies the data returned (request count, failure count, response time) and the resource (a service/workload), so an agent knows what the tool provides. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and does not distinguish this from siblings like dynatrace_health, dynatrace_workload_status, or dynatrace_metrics_query.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With 11 optional parameters and several sibling tools covering related health/status/metrics queries, an agent receives no help deciding when this tool is preferred over dynatrace_metrics_query or dynatrace_workload_status.

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