alertmanager_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]' and explains post-grouping/silence/inhibit behavior, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return format. This is sufficient for a simple read operation but not rich.

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 two concise lines plus an args list, front-loading the purpose and then providing parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks examples and explicit return value description, but is otherwise adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: active_only (exclude silenced/inhibited) and target (Prometheus target name from config). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading alerts from Alertmanager's perspective, after grouping/silence/inhibit processing. This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like firing_alerts and pending_alerts.

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 context is implied by the description (use for Alertmanager's view of alerts), but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over siblings. The active_only parameter hints at filtering but doesn't guide selection.

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