list_muted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the [READ] tag in the description is largely redundant. What the description does add is the semantic scope of the result set (objects in a suppression window), which is useful context, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or result 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?

Front-loaded with the read marker and the resource, then the parameter note. No wasted sentences, though the [READ] prefix duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies what an agent needs: the result semantics and the target parameter's behavior. Only the absence of selection guidance against siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — and it does: 'target: SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default.' That conveys both the value source (config) and the default behavior, which the bare anyOf/null schema does not.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource: objects currently in an alert-suppression (muted) window. That is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings mute_alerts and unmute_alerts, though it never names them explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the nearby mute_alerts, unmute_alerts, or active_alerts tools. The only usage-like guidance is the parameter note 'omit for the default', which is not about tool selection. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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