list_muted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose a safe read operation via [READ] and clarifies that the result is current, not historical. However, it does not describe the output shape, pagination, or behavior when the target is missing, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the argument. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the invocation details are mostly covered. But with no output schema and no usage context, the description leaves out what the returned objects look like and when to prefer this over related sibling tools.

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 only provides type and default for target. The description adds meaningful semantics: target is a SolarWinds config name, and omitting it selects the default target. This adequately compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a concrete read operation: list objects in an alert-suppression (muted) window. The [READ] prefix and the phrase 'muted window' make the resource and state clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_unmanaged, but the meaning is sufficiently distinct.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mute_alerts, unmute_alerts, active_alerts, or list_unmanaged. It only documents the target argument, so an agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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