list_faults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states scope. It does not disclose return format, whether the tool is read-only, how include_details affects output, or any operational caveats. 'Open fault tickets' implies a read operation but is not explicit enough.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It communicates the core purpose and scope without wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete: it does not explain the include_details parameter, what the response contains, or any prerequisites. The scope clarification helps, but there are clear gaps for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 schema has one parameter, include_details, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing 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 uses 'Open fault tickets' to indicate listing open fault tickets, and adds a clear scope qualifier ('account-wide, not per-service') that differentiates it from siblings like service_outages. However, 'Open' is slightly ambiguous and could be read as an action rather than a listing operation, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 gives a clear scope ('account-wide, not per-service'), which implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as service_outages or list_diagnostics. There are no explicit exclusions beyond the per-service distinction.

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