firing_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates that. The description does add genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the output shape ('grouped by severity') and that target names come from config with a default fallback, though it says nothing about permissions, scope, or limits of the read.

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 components with the purpose front-loaded before the Args block; no filler sentences. Slightly terse and the bracketed tag is redundant with annotations, 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, grouping behavior, and full parameter meaning. Only sibling disambiguation within the alerting family is left unaddressed.

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 carries the burden for the lone parameter and does so well: it identifies 'target' as a Prometheus target name sourced from config and explains that omitting it selects the default. It stops short of giving format examples or listing valid target names.

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 verb+resource: 'Currently firing Prometheus rule alerts', with the added scope 'grouped by severity'. The resource is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from pending_alerts, alertmanager_alerts, and firing_alert_rca, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over pending_alerts or alertmanager_alerts, which is the main ambiguity given the crowded alerting family. The only usage-like statement, 'omit for the default', is about the parameter rather than tool selection.

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