slide_list_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-style operation and lists filter dimensions, but it omits behavioral details such as default pagination, sorting behavior, and what the returned alert objects contain.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the core action, provides concrete examples, and summarizes filters without wasted words. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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 list tool with zero required parameters and complete schema descriptions, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for calling the tool. The main gap is not explicitly connecting it to slide_get_alert or explaining pagination behavior, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds value by summarizing the key filter groups, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List alerts') and gives concrete examples of alert types, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The plural 'alerts' and filter list also help distinguish it from the sibling slide_get_alert.

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 list semantics imply this is for retrieving multiple alerts rather than a single one, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling is mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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