promql_query

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the burden is lower. The description adds valuable context: the base path is inferred and every result carries base_path_confirmed=False until confirmed, plus an actionable error when the integration is missing. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 moderately sized but well-structured: opening summary, usage context, gotcha, then Args list. Each sentence adds value. Slight redundancy in the Args list mirroring schema parameter names, but the added descriptions justify 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?

For a 5-param tool with no output schema, it covers the main areas: return format (result series, timestamp, value, paginated envelope, result_type/status), a dangerous gotcha (base_path_confirmed=False), and prerequisites. It could elaborate on pagination specifics, but given no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameters. It explains each of the 5 args: query is a PromQL expression, time is RFC3339 or Unix seconds, source_id scopes the query, limit has a default and None behavior, target is a config name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Run a real-time PromQL instant query' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_resource_metrics by positioning it as complementary for near-real-time metrics, making the tool's purpose unique.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('for near-real-time (~2s) metrics') and names the alternative (get_resource_metrics for historical rollups). It also mentions a prerequisite (VODAP integration registered). It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement, so not a 5.

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