get_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation (returning data) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention authorization needs, rate limits, or other side effects. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and providing usage guidance in the second. No redundant information.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (configuration and history) and how to get the ID. It covers the essential information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for the alertId parameter. The description adds value by specifying the origin of the ID ('from list_alerts') and listing what to check, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'Target alert ID'.

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 tool returns the detailed configuration and recent trigger history of an alert. It lists specific attributes (threshold, notification channels, silence state, when it fired), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_alerts or list_alert_events.

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 tells the agent to pass the alertId obtained from list_alerts and to use it for checking specific details. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context among siblings (create, update, delete) makes the use case clear.

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