pressable_list_security_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'across all sites' adds scope context. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, output format, or any potential side effects, which is a moderate gap.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action ('Get security alerts'), followed by the object and scope. There is no wasted wording; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description suffices for basic selection. It conveys the key scope ('across all sites') which is important for choosing between this and site-specific tools. However, it could have mentioned whether resolved alerts are included or any default filtering, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear enum and description for the 'type' parameter (plugin/theme). The tool description mentions plugins and themes, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond matching the schema values. Baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets security alerts, specifies the resources (plugins and themes), and indicates the scope (across all sites). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_plugins or list_themes, which list the plugins/themes themselves rather than 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need security alerts rather than general plugin/theme listings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit rather than directly stated.

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