alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool only reads and compares and has no side effects: nothing is sent anywhere and nothing is recorded. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but for a read-only status check this is strong transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; every clause contributes purpose, scope, or a differentiating behavioral trait. The safety-relevant non-side-effect property is clearly stated and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter read-only check, the description covers what it does and its behavioral boundary. It does not spell out the exact return format, but the name 'alerts' and the verb 'check' make the result type reasonably predictable. No significant gaps remain for deciding whether to call it.

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 input schema already fully documents the single optional parameter, including the local-run behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the high schema coverage makes the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 (check), a clear resource (resource alerts for CPU, memory, and disk usage), and a qualifier (against configured thresholds). The contrast with watcher behavior and the phrase 'nothing is recorded' also separates it from recording/history tools like alerts_history and watch tools.

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 and supports the use case: current threshold status check, not notifications or recording. It explicitly says it reads and compares and that sending/recording would be a running watcher's job, which helps an agent choose this over watcher tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives like alerts_history, but the guidance is clear.

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