watch.read-alert

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

The description discloses the primary behavioral trait: it changes the alert's state to read. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not clarify idempotence, scope, reversibility, or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it may be slightly too sparse to be considered excellent.

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 the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable for invoking the tool when the alert_id is already known. However, it lacks usage context and parameter source information, so an agent may need to rely on sibling tool names or external context to call it confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not add meaningful detail about alert_id beyond what the schema already shows ('Alert Id'). It does not explain where the alert ID comes from or how it should be interpreted, despite the low coverage requiring more compensation.

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 action ('将告警标为已读' = mark alert as read) and the resource (alert), making the core purpose easy to identify. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like watch.alerts, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, how to obtain a valid alert_id, or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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