Get Current ADT Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that alerts are derived from live state rather than stored events, which is meaningful behavioral context about freshness. It stops short of stating whether results are cached or how stale they can be.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the disambiguating exclusion. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 explained, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. The description is nearly complete for a read tool, with only the undocumented limit parameter leaving a small gap.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, with default 20, min 1, max 100) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents constraints but conveys no meaning. The description never mentions pagination or the limit parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on result sizing.

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 ('Derive current actionable alerts from live device state') and enumerates the alert categories (triggered sensors, offline devices, battery warnings). It also explicitly disambiguates from the similarly named sibling get-event-history.

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 sentence 'This is not provider event history' explicitly routes the agent away from get-event-history, which is the most likely confusion. However, it does not state positive use conditions (e.g. when to prefer this over adt-dashboard or get-camera-snapshot), so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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