List alert rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic nuance that these are per-project 'conditions' rather than fired events, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though cursor/limit params suggest it) or the return shape.

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, well-phrased sentence that efficiently conveys scope and purpose with zero waste or redundancy. Appropriate for a straightforward list-style tool.

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 list tool with good annotations (read-only, non-destructive), moderate completeness. It communicates the core purpose and project scoping. However, no output schema, no pagination explanation beyond the presence of cursor/limit params, and no guidance on what a 'rule' object looks like or how results are ordered.

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 33% with the project_id parameter well documented in-schema ('list_projects returns valid project ids'), so the schema partially carries the burden. The description adds the concept of 'per-project conditions' tying rules to a project context. However, limit and cursor lack any description beyond type constraints, and the description doesn't compensate for the 67% coverage gap.

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 ('list the per-project conditions that decide when a notification fires'), clearly identifying it as the read/listing tool for alert rules. It's distinguishable from siblings like create_alert_rule, update_alert_rule, list_triggered_alerts, and delete_alert_rule, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself.

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 vs alternatives like list_triggered_alerts (which lists actual fired notifications vs the rule conditions). The description notes 'per-project conditions' implying it needs a project_id, but doesn't clarify special cases like pagination use or how it relates to the triggered-alerts counter tool.

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