list_symptom_definitions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces with '[READ]' and adds details about filtering, limit range (1-500), and target behavior, which go beyond annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences for the main description, followed by a bullet list for args. Front-loaded with '[READ]' and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers parameters and usage linkage. However, it omits behavior on empty results or error conditions. Still, given annotations and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name_filter as case-insensitive substring, resource_kind with examples (VirtualMachine, HostSystem), limit with range and default, and target with fallback behavior. This adds crucial meaning missing from the 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?

Clearly states 'List symptom definitions' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the returned IDs are used for create_alert_definition, which ties its purpose to a specific downstream task.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use returned IDs for create_alert_definition, providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude other uses or compare to sibling list tools, but the name and purpose are self-explanatory.

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