get_diagnostic_remediation_assignments

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive safety. The description adds the behavioral nuance that this tool resolves which modules actually apply to a target, which is helpful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the annotations carry the safety burden.

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: the first states the core action and scope, the second provides the key differentiator from siblings. Both are purposeful with no filler, and the most 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?

For a read-only tool with four optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify behavior when both alert_id and resource_id are provided, but the schema's 'provide this or resource_id' wording is sufficient for an 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (limit, alert_id, module_type, resource_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description only mirrors the association with 'specific resource or alert' and does not add new meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('diagnostic and remediation sources assigned to a specific resource or alert'). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings get_diagnosticsources/get_remediationsources by noting it 'resolves which modules actually apply to the target', so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 names the closely related siblings (get_diagnosticsources/get_remediationsources) and states the key difference: this tool resolves applied modules rather than simply listing sources. This gives the agent a concrete condition for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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