list_alert_grouping_settings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing pagination (after, before, limit) and the option to include total count, which are important for understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list and a Returns line. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, effectively communicating all necessary information.

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 that there are 5 parameters, no enums, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description provides complete guidance. It explains filtering and pagination, which are the main complexities, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters (service_ids, limit, after, before, total), including their purpose and defaults. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about cursor formats.

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 starts with 'List all alert grouping settings with optional filtering,' clearly stating the verb (list) and resource (alert grouping settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_alert_from_incident' or 'list_incidents' by specifying the exact resource being listed.

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 explains parameters like service_ids for filtering, which gives context on when to use the tool (e.g., to list settings for specific services). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving this dimension minimally adequate.

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