run_promql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the guardrail requirement and the two execution modes (instant vs. range queries), which helps the agent understand prerequisites and behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists).

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Guardrail, Modes). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized.

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 high complexity (18 parameters, 0% schema coverage) but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose, guardrail, and execution modes, which are crucial. However, with so many undocumented parameters and no annotations, it leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage and behavioral context beyond what the output schema provides.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains two parameters ('approved' and 'instant') out of 18 total parameters. While it provides meaningful context for those two, it leaves 16 parameters completely unexplained, failing to adequately compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 custom PromQL.' This specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('custom PromQL'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_alerts' or 'run_check'), which would require a 5.

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 usage context with the guardrail ('approved must be True before execution') and explains the two modes based on the 'instant' parameter. This gives practical guidance on when and how to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_alerts' or 'run_check' from the sibling list, which would be needed for a 5.

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