list_symptom_definitions

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

The description starts with '[READ]', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds context about filtering and the target parameter. No contradictions; the behavior is properly disclosed.

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 concise with a clear intro and bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (list with optional filters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary input details. The purpose and usage are clear, and no additional context is needed.

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 thoroughly explains all 4 parameters: name_filter (substring, case-insensitive), resource_kind (e.g. VirtualMachine), limit (1-500, default 100), and target (optional, from config). This adds significant meaning 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 action ('List symptom definitions') and the resource, and explicitly mentions the purpose: 'use the returned IDs when calling create_alert_definition'. This uniquely positions the tool among siblings like list_alert_definitions.

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 explicitly states when to use it (to get IDs for create_alert_definition) and provides parameter explanations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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