slide_get_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, potential errors (e.g., not found), or any permissions required. The description adds no context beyond the action itself.

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 with no redundancy, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified in terms of context, though it remains efficient and to the point.

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 getter with one parameter, the description is functionally complete: it specifies the action and the identifier needed. The absence of an output schema and the low complexity mean that no additional context is essential for correct invocation, though a note on error behavior would enhance completeness.

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 100% (alert_id with 'Alert ID.'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning, such as format, constraints, or how the ID is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 a single alert by ID' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (alert) with a method of identification (by ID). It inherently distinguishes from the sibling slide_list_alerts, which retrieves multiple alerts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slide_list_alerts, nor does it mention any preconditions such as needing a valid alert ID or whether the alert must exist. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by ID'.

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