yaaif_ops_correlate

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

With no annotations present, the explicit 'READ-ONLY' prefix is a meaningful behavioral disclosure that tells the agent this tool has no side effects. It also names the output shape. However, it does not disclose how analyze/include_raw affect behavior or whether any background computation occurs, so it is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The READ-ONLY safety signal comes first, followed by the action and output, making it easy to scan.

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 10 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 30% schema coverage, this one-sentence description is too thin. It does not explain parameter relationships, defaults, output structure, or how an agent should choose which IDs to supply, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add meaning by identifying four ID parameters as correlation keys, but it leaves harness_run_id, analyze, include_raw, and others unexplained in both schema and description. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb ('correlate'), a precise set of resources (session_id, ambient_run_id, desktop_run_id, request_id), and a distinct output ('one incident graph with failure summaries'). This clearly separates it from single-ID getter tools like yaaif_ops_session_get or yaaif_ops_ambient_run_get.

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 use when multiple ID types need to be tied together into a single incident view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as yaaif_ops_analyze or yaaif_ops_diagnosis_create. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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