Get active alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that alerts are scoped to the authenticated user and that dismissed alerts are omitted, which goes slightly beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination, return format, or any side effects, but these are not critical for a simple read-only call.

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 brief and mostly front-loaded: the first sentence restates the title, while the second adds the valuable scope and exclusion details. It could be tightened by merging the two sentences into one, but it is still concise and free of fluff. Every sentence carries relevant information, even if the first is redundant.

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 description is complete enough for a simple zero-parameter read operation, but the absence of an output schema leaves some ambiguity. It does not clarify what an 'alert' is (e.g., an alert rule vs. an alert firing), even though sibling tools include termix_alerts_list_alert_firings_current_user and termix_alerts_list_alert_rules_current_user. For a tool that could return different data shapes, a brief mention of the output would increase completeness, but the current description is not severely lacking.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is expected when there are no parameters. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 ('Fetches active alerts') and the resource ('for the authenticated user'), and explicitly excludes dismissed alerts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like termix_alerts_get_dismissed_alerts. It goes beyond the title by specifying the user scope and the exclusion criterion, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for fetching active alerts for the current user, and it should not be used for dismissed alerts because they are explicitly excluded. It does not name the alternative tool (termix_alerts_get_dismissed_alerts) or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the exclusion itself gives strong implicit routing.

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