List TacticalRMM Alerts

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

Annotations already cover read-only and safety. The description adds the behavioral note about TacticalRMM expecting a PATCH query for filters, which explains the tool's parameter limitations. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail pagination or response structure.

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, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. The endpoint reference is precise and adds value.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters, clear schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It gives the endpoint and read-only nature, plus a note on filter behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state what output to expect, though the response_format parameter covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the endpoint; the schema descriptions are already self-explanatory for limit, offset, and response_format.

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 'List TacticalRMM alerts from /alerts/', specifying the verb, resource, and endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools since no other sibling lists alerts.

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?

It explicitly says 'This tool is read-only' and mentions that TacticalRMM expects a PATCH query for alert filters, suggesting this GET-style tool doesn't handle filters. This gives clear context, but no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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