detect_alert_burst

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the burst definition and the intended scenario, though it does not state what exact shape the result takes, e.g., boolean vs. list of alerts.

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 focused sentences carry the algorithm, the question it answers, and a motivating example with no filler. Important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, zero required parameters, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and no explicit statement of the return value or result format, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying the N/M/T variables to the relevant parameters: min_alerts, min_devices, and window_seconds. It also clarifies that bursts are defined for the same DataSource, which gives the datasource_pattern parameter extra conceptual context beyond the schema description.

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 a specific operation: a sliding-window detector for mass alert events, with the N/M/T criteria spelled out. It answers the direct question 'did a bunch of stuff break at once?' and gives a concrete cascading-failure example, making it easy to distinguish from generic alert-fetching siblings like get_alerts or correlate_alerts.

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 states that the tool is for detecting cascading failures and gives a concrete use case like mass interface-down events during a site outage. However, it does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as when a broader alert query or a site-outage detector would be more appropriate.

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