analyze_service_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states aggregation but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The behavioral context is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, the most critical information (that it determines error vs. success rates) is embedded at the end; front-loading would improve scannability.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., a ratio or table) but does not. For a tool with 3 required params and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide 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% (all params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as clarifying the relationship between parameters or providing usage examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('logs'), and clearly states the output measure ('error vs. success rates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_logs' (which searches) and 'get_log_details' (which retrieves details), making its unique purpose clear.

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 for health analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'search_logs' or 'scan_code_for_apis'. No when-not-to-use or alternative directions are given.

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