Triage Problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Investigate' and the list of read-type sources (records, logs, events) imply a non-destructive read, and it discloses the aggregation scope, but it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, auth/permission needs, or cost/rate characteristics for a 13-parameter fan-out query.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its data scope front-loaded ahead of the input instructions. Every clause carries information.

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 13-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the investigation scope and accepted inputs but leaves gaps: it does not explain how the time-range params interact with around/window, nor what the aggregated result contains. Adequate but with clear omissions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying that alertText yields an extracted P-id and that cluster/namespace/workload act as overrides of extracted hints, but the time-range vs around/window distinction and connection semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Investigate') plus a named resource ('Davis problem') and an explicit enumeration of what it aggregates: problem record, kube pods/quota, ERROR logs, OOM/CrashLoop events. An agent can tell this is a compound triage tool rather than a single-record fetch, but no sibling (e.g. dynatrace_get_problem or dynatrace_triage_scope) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It gives input modes ('Pass P-123 or paste alert text') and notes the optional overrides, which implies usage. However it never states when to prefer this over the many sibling investigation tools (dynatrace_get_problem, dynatrace_pod_issues, dynatrace_triage_scope) or when not to use it, leaving selection to inference.

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