get_faults

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 mentions that the tool lists 'all active faults' and allows filtering, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no faults exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding optional filtering in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating mandatory and optional aspects.

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 complexity of a fault-listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'severity' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Optionally filter by severity level,' but it doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active faults'), including what information is returned (severity, description, cause, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on faults rather than settings, logs, inventory, or other system aspects.

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 usage through the phrase 'Optionally filter by severity level,' suggesting this tool is for viewing faults with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_log' or 'get_server_health,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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