get_app_anomaly_event

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 adds useful context about the response ('with smart_monitor and deploy context'), but does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., not found), or rate limits. For a simple read this is adequate but thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It tells the agent the operation, scope, and a key piece of response context without filler.

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?

Complexity is low (two integer parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should at least clarify the required app_id or error behavior; it omits both.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It says 'by ID' without naming app_id or anomaly_event_id, leaving the agent to infer both from parameter titles alone. Only the anomaly event ID is loosely implied.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single anomaly event by ID'). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_app_anomaly_events, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve one anomaly event when you already have its ID. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_app_anomaly_events or any other retrieval sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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