rr_get_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation ('get'). It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or limitations like rate limits. The description carries the full burden but adds minimal transparency.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but given the tool has 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is too under-specified. Additional context is needed beyond basic 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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to even hint at return values, filtering behavior, or pagination (limit/offset). The AI agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters (status, alert_type, severity, etc.). The AI agent receives no help in understanding parameter values, formats, or usage, rendering the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 'Get active alerts' is a clear verb+noun pairing indicating the tool retrieves alerts. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like rr_acknowledge_alert, which could be seen as an alternative action on 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, such as rr_acknowledge_alert or rr_list_purchase_orders, usage context would be helpful but is absent.

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