correlate_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains what the tool does with alert and change data and introduces the 'configurable correlation windows' behavior. This goes beyond simply repeating annotation values.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, followed by the key parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is zero redundancy.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters, both documented, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent nature. The description explains the analytical purpose sufficiently for an agent to invoke it. A missing output schema is a minor gap, but for this simple two-parameter tool the description is otherwise complete.

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% for both parameters, and the schema already explains their meaning and defaults. The description only mentions 'configurable correlation windows' without adding detail beyond what the schema provides. Hence it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('cross-reference') and names the resources ('alert spikes with audit/change logs') and the output ('identifies changes that may have triggered alert increases'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like correlate_alerts and correlate_metrics, which focus on other correlation targets.

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 when to use the tool (when investigating whether changes triggered alert spikes) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given a large sibling list with several correlation/analysis tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the purpose is reasonably inferable.

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