Get Alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'retrieve'. Critically, mark_read defaults to true, meaning a nominally read-shaped call mutates state (marking alerts read) — the description never warns about this side effect, nor about the default 60-minute window or volume limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a tool with a mutation side effect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. However, the mark_read write side effect and the relationship to the monitor cycle are absent, leaving the agent with gaps a single sentence could have closed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents severity, mark_read, and since_minutes with defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (alerts) with the source scoped to 'real-time monitor for watched IOCs'. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like run_monitor_cycle or list_watches.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus run_monitor_cycle (which presumably produces these alerts) or list_watches. There are no prerequisites, no mention of ordering or freshness relative to monitoring cycles.

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