get_alert_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get all alert contacts' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination behavior, or that 'all' is constrained by limit/offset. This is a notable transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

While an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, the description lacks critical behavioral context. It says 'all' but the schema implies pagination, and no annotations exist. This incomplete context could mislead the agent.

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 input schema provides full parameter descriptions for limit and offset (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter meaning. It does not, and the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 'Get all alert contacts' clearly states the action (get) and resource (alert contacts). It is distinct from sibling tools because it's the read operation for alert contacts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_monitors or create_alert_contact. The intended use is only implied by the name, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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