active_alerts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: alerts are deduplicated and rolled up per message, and storms collapse into a single counted entry. It stops short of stating whether results are truncated, paginated, or how the count is surfaced, so the behavioral picture is useful but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation type and core value proposition in the first two lines, then the argument note. The '[READ]' tag and 'Args:' block add slight redundancy against the readOnlyHint annotation, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the dedup semantics, the supported backends, and the parameter default. Return-shape details are the only meaningful omission and are partly implied by 'one counted entry.'

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 a single optional parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does so adequately: 'Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the value source and the defaulting behavior. It does not enumerate valid target names, but config-sourced names are reasonably self-documenting.

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 resource (active alerts) and the distinctive behavior (dedup/rollup by message) plus the supported sources SolarWinds or PRTG. It does not, however, differentiate itself from conceptually adjacent siblings such as noc_rollup, prtg_alarms, or zabbix_problems, so an agent still has to guess which alert surface to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the dedup rationale ('so the signal isn't buried under duplicates') suggests using it during alert storms, and the target arg note says to omit it for the default. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not or named alternative, which matters given several overlapping monitoring siblings.

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