investigate_alert

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the server-side correlation process, the five always-present return keys, and the degradation behavior when a resource is unresolvable. This adds valuable context about what actually happens during execution.

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?

While the description is detailed, every sentence serves a purpose: the [READ] tag sets expectations, the why-to-use rationale, the return structure, and the gotchas. It is front-loaded with the most important information and well-structured, earning its length.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description explains return keys, error handling, and usage constraints thoroughly. It provides all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains alert_id as 'the alert UUID from list_alerts (not the resource UUID)' and target as 'Aria target name from config; default when omitted.' This is exactly the semantic meaning the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve one alert to its affected resource in a single call' and explicitly distinguishes itself from the alternative of chaining get_alert and get_resource. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly scoped: 'use this instead of chaining get_alert then get_resource by hand.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-match instruction ('Never match the resource against vCenter inventory unless correlation.confirmed is true') and warns against a common mistake (mixing alert_id with resource UUID). This gives actionable guidance for correct use.

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