woodpecker_detect_blind_spots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains what the tool does (lists blind spots) and adds context that these are not outages, avoiding misinterpretation. It could be improved by noting if it only lists current state or historical data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action 'List observability blind spots' and then provides clarifying context. Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines what blind spots are and the condition (no live scrape target). However, it does not specify output format or how results are ordered.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists observability blind spots, defined as healthy services without Prometheus scrape targets. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like diagnose_root_cause or get_service_health.

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 by clarifying that blind spots are not outages and should not trigger pages, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No direct mention of sibling tools or when-not-to-use.

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