list_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination defaults and return format, which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and return documentation. The only minor improvement would be integrating the sections more seamlessly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, four parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description does well. It explains all parameters and mentions the return structure, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values extensively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by documenting all four parameters with their purposes and defaults. It explains 'page' and 'per_page' for pagination, 'filter' as a PocketBase filter string, and 'sort' for ordering. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all configured alerts in Beszel'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alert_history' by focusing on current configurations rather than historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_containers' or 'list_systems'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_alert_history', 'list_containers', or 'list_systems'. It mentions filtering and sorting capabilities but doesn't explain when these would be preferred over other query tools. There's no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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