network_alerts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true (reinforced by the [READ] tag), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result carries 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated' and the caller is told to re-run with a higher limit when truncated, rather than treating a short list as complete. It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. The Args lines restate schema keys, but each adds substantive meaning (source, defaults, truncation semantics) rather than repeating types.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the shape of the list response (counts plus truncation flags), which is what an agent needs to consume results safely. It doesn't describe alert contents or severity levels, a minor gap for a 3-param read tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it identifies network_id's source (network_list), gives limit's default (200) and its interaction with truncation, and explains target as a config name with a default fallback. 'Target name from config' remains slightly underspecified, keeping this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Current network health alerts') and scope ('summarised by severity'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like network_traffic and network_health_score. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named despite several overlapping candidates (network_health_score, network_traffic, overview). 'Current' implies recency but nothing routes the agent here versus those tools.

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