listAlerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'List alerts' without explaining what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it returns all alerts, filtered alerts, paginated results, or requires authentication. The inclusion of query parameters and response examples in the description adds some context about pagination and output format, but this is minimal and doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 structured with sections for query parameters and responses, which is organized. However, it's overly verbose in some areas (e.g., repeating 'No description' for parameters) while being too brief in others (e.g., the core purpose is just two words). The response example adds length without clear utility. Overall, it's not efficiently front-loaded, but the structure attempts to convey 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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It mentions an output schema exists (with a 200 response example), which reduces the need to detail return values, but it fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or differentiation from siblings. For a listing tool with pagination parameters, more context on how to use it effectively is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists the parameters ('include', 'page_number', 'page_size') but provides no semantic information about what they do, their expected values, or how they affect the listing. For example, it doesn't explain what 'include' might filter or what the pagination parameters control. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'List alerts' which is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what kind of alerts, from what system, or what scope. While 'list' is a clear verb and 'alerts' is the resource, this is too vague to be helpful. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'listIncidentAlerts' or 'listIncidents' which might handle similar data.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might handle alerts or related data (e.g., 'listIncidentAlerts', 'attachAlert', 'createAlert'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or provide context about when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus others.

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