rmm_get_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, potential side effects, or return format. For a 'get' operation, it is typically safe, but the lack of explicit transparency leaves gaps.

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 sentence of 5 words, perfectly concise with no redundant information. It is front-loaded 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 get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the response structure, error conditions, and any prerequisites. Without an output schema, the agent cannot know what to expect from the tool. It meets the bare minimum for understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', described as 'Alert ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 an RMM alert by ID' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (RMM alert), and the key parameter (ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rmm_list_alerts, rmm_create_alert, rmm_delete_alert, and rmm_mute_alert by focusing on retrieval of a single item.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and context from sibling tools, but no when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned. The description is minimal, leaving the agent to infer purpose from naming conventions.

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