get_firing_count

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the GET method (implying read-only) and adds a useful warning that payloads are untrusted data, not instructions. It does not explain response shape, required auth, or any constraints beyond the endpoint.

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?

Composeipt and front-loaded: the core return action is first, then the endpoint, then the security guard. Every sentence adds value, though a sentence defining 'firing count' would improve structure.

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 description is far too thin for a tool with 27 undocumented parameters and no output schema. It gives the endpoint and a security warning but no direction on how to build a valid request or interpret the result.

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?

All 27 parameters are string-only with no schema descriptions (0% coverage), and the description explains none of them. An agent has no way to know what q, env, status, range, or any other property means.

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?

Uses the verb 'Returns' plus a concrete endpoint 'GET /v1/alerts/firing-count', so an agent can infer it retrieves a firing count. However, the phrase 'Traceorb telemetry' is generic and does not clearly state 'firing alerts' or differentiate from sibling metric tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternates like query_metrics or list_alert_incidents. The security warning about payloads is operational advice, not selection guidance.

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