check_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 only states what is checked but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, triggers side effects, or requires permissions. For a tool that inspects system state, this lack of behavioral clarity is a gap.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and specific alert types. Every word earns its place, and it is as concise as possible while being informative.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return format (e.g., a list of alerts). It sufficiently covers the input (none) and purpose but leaves ambiguity about the output structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description naturally cannot add parameter-level detail. However, it adds value by enumerating the types of alerts checked, which helps the agent understand the scope without needing parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 states the tool checks for issues and notifications, listing specific examples (disk space warnings, corrupted sessions, quota violations). However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tool 'check_quotas', which likely overlaps in functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health_check' or 'check_quotas'. The description implies a general monitoring purpose but provides no exclusions or context for decision-making.

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