list_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by being labeled 'list' and describes what alerts are listed. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or destructive potential, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 concise, using a clear two-paragraph structure: first paragraph states purpose and overall guidance, second paragraph lists parameter details in a compact args format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately for a list tool with two optional parameters. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the response contains (e.g., 'returns a list of alert objects with fields such as ...') would improve completeness slightly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides concrete semantic details for both parameters. It specifies valid values for severity ('warning | critical') and explains the meaning of resolved ('False for active alerts, True for resolved alerts. Omit for all.'), adding value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the resource 'GPU infrastructure alerts', with examples of alert types (thermal throttling, OOM kills, low utilisation, hardware errors). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_anomalies by focusing on GPU-specific 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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: 'when investigating performance degradation, unexpected restarts, or before making scaling decisions.' Also explains the meaning of the resolved parameter ('Open alerts (resolved=False) indicate active issues'), providing clear usage context.

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