alert_alert_history

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It correctly indicates retrieval (no mutation) and output structure, but omits details like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that efficiently front-loads the action and concludes with the return type. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (partially described), the description covers the core function but lacks context on ordering, default behavior for limit, or how 'count' and 'total' differ. It is functional but misses opportunistic details.

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 links parameters (rule, severity, limit) to concrete meanings (filter by rule name, severity, limit). This adds value over the bare schema, but does not specify formats (e.g., string vs enum) or defaults, missing a chance to fully compensate.

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 retrieves 'fired alert history' with specific filters (rule name, severity, limit) and explicitly lists the return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alert_alert_list (list alert definitions) and alert_alert_get (single alert).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate for other scenarios (e.g., for current alerts use alert_alert_list).

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