List Alerts

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: rules live in the app's own alerting tenant, are evaluated once a minute (data freshness), and — critically — a production app has two default rules created the first time its alerts are read, with their exact thresholds and notification target. That bootstrap side effect on an ostensibly read-only call is exactly the kind of surprise an agent needs warned about before calling.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then scoping semantics, then the default-rule caveat. The default-rule detail is longer than strictly necessary for a listing tool but it earns its place as the key operational caveat; no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description defines the returned fields, the evaluation cadence, the tenant boundary, and the filter behavior, which covers most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around the un-described scoping parameters (env/region) and any result-size or ordering behavior, but nothing essential to deciding to call it is missing.

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?

Only one of the five parameters is discussed in the description, and that one (`service`) largely restates its existing schema description. `env`, `region`, `workspaceSlug`, and `appSlug` get no semantic help at all — notably `region`, which is unconstrained in the schema and ambiguous, and `env`, whose effect on which rules are returned is never explained. With 20% schema coverage the description should be compensating and is not.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — returns the app's alert rules — and enumerates what each entry carries (state, firing services, last-fired time). It is not a tautology of the name, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling write tools (createAlert/updateAlert/deleteAlert) or listChannels, so sibling routing is left to inference from the verb.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the way to inspect current alert rules, and the `service` sentence implies a per-service drill-down workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use versus createAlert/updateAlert/listsChannels, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that the app must exist or that env/region must be supplied to scope the listing).

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