byok-observability-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes what the tool returns (alert name, state, severity, labels, annotations, and start time) and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides explicit usage guidance. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what data is returned and providing a clear use case. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether this shows all alerts or only recent ones, or if there are any limitations on the data returned.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions filtering by state and label selectors but doesn't add any semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active (or filtered) alerts from Grafana Alertmanager'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for Grafana alerts rather than Opsgenie alerts or other Grafana resources like dashboards or datasources. The example use case further clarifies its specific purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to answer "are there any firing alerts right now?"' This provides clear context for its primary use case. It also implies filtering capabilities that differentiate it from other alert-related tools like opsgenie_list_alerts.

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