teramind_list_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: the rule's description/caption/values fields may include triggering-context excerpts rather than pure metadata, and are passed through as received. This is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, which are less critical for a list operation.

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 three tight sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, the second covers required/optional parameters, and the third contains an important caveat. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and the main filtering options. It doesn't mention pagination defaults or sorting, but those are inferable from the schema. The caveat about response shape adds completeness that an agent would otherwise lack.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an ISO 8601 example for the datetime parameters and notes comma-separated IDs for filters, slightly reinforcing the schema but not adding substantial new meaning. It does not explain limit/offset beyond what the schema already says.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List alerts (fired rule-violation events) in a time window', and enumerates the key fields returned (which rule, when, agent/computer, rule's description/caption). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list/get static entities like computers, agents, or policies.

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 explicit invocation context: required periodStart/periodEnd with ISO 8601 format and optional agent/computer/department filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is so distinct from siblings that an agent would correctly select it. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence 4.

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