run_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'return summarized results'), uses Prometheus query_range, and describes filter behavior for server_name/instance. However, it omits critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'summarized results' entails structurally.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter guide and filter behavior explanation. Most sentences earn their place, though some redundancy exists (e.g., listing all time-offset parameters individually). It could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the check_id requirement earlier.

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 (15 parameters, no annotations) but presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It thoroughly documents inputs and basic behavior. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage semantics. Minor gaps remain in behavioral transparency (e.g., error cases).

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 15 parameters: explains required vs. optional inputs, gives examples (e.g., step: '1m, 5m, 15m'), clarifies priority rules (absolute vs. relative time, environment vs. env_hint), and documents filter interaction logic. This adds significant value 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('run', 'return') and resources ('allowlisted check via Prometheus query_range', 'summarized results'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_all_checks' (single vs. all checks) and 'run_promql' (predefined checks vs. custom queries).

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 usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'when targeting one exact exporter endpoint' for 'instance'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'run_all_checks' or 'run_promql'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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