Prom Targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool reports up/down status; it does not disclose whether parameters can filter targets, how empty results behave, whether live Prometheus access is required, or whether there are any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It saves words at the expense of parameter and usage guidance, so it is not appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.

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?

Even though there is an output schema and no required parameters, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation: the generic params object is unhelpful, no usage context is given, and the relationship to the Prometheus siblings is not clarified. An agent can guess the basic purpose but cannot fully determine correct call behavior.

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 exposes only a generic 'params' object with additionalProperties true and no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says nothing about parameters, so an agent has no guidance on whether or how to filter targets, and cannot infer valid param keys.

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 'Статус scrape targets (up/down)' clearly identifies Prometheus scrape target health as the focus, which separates it from siblings like prom_query, prom_range, and prom_alerts. It lacks an explicit verb ('get', 'list'), but the noun-phrase status is unambiguous enough.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent to use this when checking whether scrape targets are up or down, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus prom_alerts, prom_query, or service_status. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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