run_all_checks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: parallel execution, fixed step parameter ('step is fixed to 5m'), and that provided step values are ignored. It also mentions controlling payload size as rationale. However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral aspects like error handling, performance implications, or what 'allowlisted' means in practice.

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 extremely well-structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second explains input equivalence to sibling tool. The note section efficiently covers the critical behavioral constraint about the step parameter. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 complexity (14 parameters, parallel execution), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a good job with what it covers but leaves significant gaps. It explains the parallel execution and step constraint well, but doesn't cover most parameters, doesn't explain what 'allowlisted checks' means, and doesn't describe the output format (though an output schema exists, which helps). For a tool with this many parameters and no annotations, more comprehensive coverage would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides valuable semantic context for 3 parameters: explains that 'server_name' and 'instance' are filter parameters, clarifies that 'step' is fixed at '5m' and any provided value is ignored. However, with 14 total parameters, it only covers 3 of them, leaving 11 parameters without semantic explanation in either schema or description.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run all allowlisted checks in parallel for the same time range and filters.' It specifies the action ('run'), scope ('all allowlisted checks'), execution mode ('in parallel'), and constraints ('same time range and filters'). It also distinguishes from sibling 'run_check' by explaining it runs multiple checks instead of one.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for running multiple checks in parallel with shared filters. It explicitly references sibling tool 'run_check' and states inputs are equivalent, helping the agent understand the relationship. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the basic comparison to run_check.

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