alert_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add value by disclosing the returned fields (level, message, class, dismissed), but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or whether dismissed alerts can be filtered out.

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?

One line plus an args note, front-loaded with the action and the payload shape. The '[READ]' tag is slightly redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the operation, the scope ('active'), the returned fields, and the fallback behavior of the sole parameter. Only return-volume/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it does, explaining that 'target' is a TrueNAS target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That resolves the optional/nullable parameter's behavior completely.

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 and resource ('List active TrueNAS alerts') and enumerates the returned fields (level, message, class, dismissed), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling tool covers alert listing, so explicit differentiation is unnecessary.

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 by 'active alerts' — an agent can infer this is the tool for checking current alert state, but there is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and the nearby alert_and_capacity_rca sibling is never reconciled against it.

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