List triggered alerts

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already declare this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds little behavioral context — it doesn't mention pagination behavior, ordering, whether triggered alerts are time-bounded, or what 'triggered' means in terms of state. Annotations cover the safety profile, so 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence — highly concise with no filler. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured, since so little useful guidance is packed into that sentence. Still, for what it attempts, there is zero waste.

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 there is 3 params, low schema coverage (33%), and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't address pagination semantics between the cursor and limit parameters, doesn't describe the returned alert structure, and doesn't clarify filtering or ordering. For a list-type tool, this falls short of providing the agent enough to use it effectively.

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 only 33% — only project_id has a description, while limit and cursor have no description. The tool description adds zero parameter guidance whatsoever. With low schema coverage and an absent output schema, the description should compensate but does not, providing no meaning for limit (max 200) or cursor pagination.

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 says 'List triggered alerts for a project,' which states a clear verb+resource (list alerts) and scoping (for a project). However, it does not clarify what 'triggered' means distinct from alert rules or other alert-related tools like list_alert_rules, mute_triggered_alert, or mark_project_alerts_read, so differentiation among siblings is weak.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus list_alert_rules (which likely lists alert rules rather than fired alerts) or when pagination via cursor vs limit should be used. The description does not mention any alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual usage cues, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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