check_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it checks thresholds but does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list of triggered alerts, a boolean, or a severity level), any side effects, or what 'current' means (e.g., latest reading vs. real-time stream). This is minimal for a tool that must be invoked correctly.

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 two sentences plus an Args list, all front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second adds the 'real-time alerting' context, and the Args section is concise and directly tied to the schema. No irrelevant information, no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not explain the return value or how to interpret the result. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns. It covers the parameter semantics well but misses the output behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 only provides titles and defaults, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by listing each parameter with its semantic role (urgent_low, low, high, urgent_high) and default value, giving an agent concrete meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain how thresholds are applied, but the meaning of each parameter is clear.

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 opens with 'Check current glucose against alert thresholds,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_current_glucose (which only retrieves) and get_statistics (which aggregates). The purpose is unmistakable and actionable.

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 phrase 'Simple threshold check for real-time alerting' implies a usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other cases. For example, it doesn't mention that detect_episodes might be more appropriate for historical episodes or that this is only for current readings.

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