alert_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the 'active' filter, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe the output format or any limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 exceptionally concise—just three words—with every word contributing meaning. It is front-loaded and free of any wasted text, embodying ideal conciseness for a simple 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it does not clarify what constitutes an 'active' alert, what fields are returned, or whether there are any pagination or sorting defaults. It is sufficient for a simple list but leaves minor gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying 'active alerts', which scopes the listing operation. There are no parameter details needed since the schema is already empty and complete.

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 'List active alerts' clearly states the operation (list) and the resource (active alerts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like alert_create and alert_delete that handle alert mutations. The specific scope 'active alerts' adds precision.

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 description implies usage for retrieving current alerts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alert_create or alert_delete. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context implied by the verb and resource.

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