observability_stack_health_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs live queries against Prometheus/Loki or renders static content, or what a caller receives back. 'Prefab card' hints at a display artifact but never states it.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the substantive content (PLG stack health) is front-loaded after the label. The 'Prefab card:' prefix is internal jargon that spends tokens without adding meaning for an agent.

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 zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the caller gets back and whether the operation is a safe read. Neither is covered, and the 'Prefab card' framing is unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at the return contract.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The named scope (Grafana, Prometheus, Loki) is the only semantic content needed and it is present.

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 names a resource (unified PLG stack health across Grafana, Prometheus and Loki) and distinguishes it from sibling cards like observability_grafana_dashboards_card and observability_capabilities_card by scope. However, the verb is only implied by the jargon 'Prefab card' — an agent cannot tell whether invoking this renders a UI component, returns a card spec, or executes a health check.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this card versus check_stack_status, show_status_dashboard, or the other two '_card' siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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