pending_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior via the '[READ]' prefix, which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, potential filtering, or any edge cases. For a simple read tool, this is adequate 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear heading and a one-line parameter explanation. Each element serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and the parameter. It does not explain what 'by severity' means for output, but that is a minor gap for a read-only list tool. The description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds a concise 'Args' section explaining the target parameter: 'Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare title and default value, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 opens with '[READ] Pending (not-yet-firing) Prometheus rule alerts, by severity.' This clearly identifies a specific verb (READ), a resource (Prometheus rule alerts), and a scope (pending, not-yet-firing, by severity), distinguishing it from siblings like firing_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?

The description implies usage by stating 'Pending (not-yet-firing)' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It does not name sibling tools like firing_alerts or alertmanager_alerts, so the usage context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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