defender_list_alerts

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already present, the description still adds value by disclosing that each alert carries evidence inline and that OData filters use Graph camelCase values. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but it does not need to given the annotation coverage.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, filter syntax, evidence inline, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded and has no 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter syntax, evidence behavior, and provides an alternative. The only notable gap is explicit pagination guidance beyond the schema's top parameter, but the schema already documents the maximum and the description is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds concrete filter examples ('severity eq high', 'serviceSource eq microsoftDefenderForEndpoint') and notes the camelCase convention, which gives the agent practical guidance beyond the schema's generic '$filter' description. This justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List alerts from all Defender XDR workloads', enumerating the workloads. It also differentiates from a sibling by naming defender_get_incident_alerts. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from incident-scoped alert listing.

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?

It explicitly routes incident-scoped needs to defender_get_incident_alerts. The 'all workloads' phrasing implies broad use, but it doesn't mention entity-specific alternatives like defender_get_machine_alerts or defender_get_alert. This is clear context but not exhaustive exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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