alertmanager_alerts

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

readOnlyHint=true is already supplied by annotations, so the '[READ]' prefix is redundant. The genuinely additive part is '(post grouping/silence/inhibit)', which tells the agent these are processed rather than raw alerts. Nothing is said about result shape, grouping collapse, or pagination, so it is modest added value rather than rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short lines with the scope statement front-loaded and no filler. The '[READ]' tag duplicates the annotation and the 'Args:' block is terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, the core is covered. However, with no output schema and a crowded sibling set (firing_alerts, pending_alerts, list_silences, firing_alert_rca), the description never states how this differs from or complements those tools, which is the main completeness gap.

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 parameter meaning, and it does document both parameters: active_only's exclusion semantics and target's 'Prometheus target name from config; omit for default'. The target explanation ('its Alertmanager') is slightly vague on what named value to pass, keeping this at adequate rather than strong.

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+resource (alerts) and, crucially, a scope qualifier: 'as Alertmanager sees them (post grouping/silence/inhibit)'. This conceptually distinguishes it from raw-Prometheus siblings like firing_alerts and pending_alerts, though it never names them explicitly, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 through the active_only note ('exclude silenced/inhibited alerts') and the target default hint. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives such as firing_alerts, pending_alerts, or list_silences, so an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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