get_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It does specify what checks are performed and that the list is ranked, but it lacks details about return structure, staleness criteria, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies safe). It provides some context but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 primary purpose, and efficiently lists the checks. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main context: what the alert list contains, how it is ordered, and the optional filtering. It could benefit from noting response format or sorting order beyond severity, but overall it is adequate for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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% (the 'id' property is fully described). The description does not add extra parameter semantics but also does not need to since the schema already explains the alias/serial and optional omission.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'get_alerts' with description specifying an 'Active alert list ranked by severity.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating specific alert types (cell imbalance, temperature, SOH, etc.) rather than general health or stats.

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 states it returns active alerts ranked by severity, clarifying when to use it (for current alerts). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward list tool.

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