list_alert_events

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: pagination mechanism (keyset cursor with beforeTriggeredAt + beforeId), null values for unacknowledged events, inclusion of snapshot fields (thresholdValue, windowMinutes, alertType), and that event ids can be passed to acknowledge_alert. This is highly 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 appropriately sized and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds distinct information (pagination, snapshot, acknowledgment). Slightly longer than necessary but not wasteful. Could potentially be tightened but remains efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers key return fields (acknowledgedAt/By, snapshot values) and pagination. It explains account-wide vs narrow, the use for acknowledgment, and how to paginate. This is complete for a list tool with no output schema.

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 value by explaining the pagination parameters (must be passed together), clarifying that alertId narrows to one alert vs all, and stating the default limit. This enriches the schema descriptions.

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 'Return alert trigger events, newest first' and distinguishes account-wide vs narrowed by alertId. It is a specific verb+resource with scope differentiation, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_alerts (which lists alert definitions) and acknowledge_alert.

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 provides example questions that the tool answers ('which alerts fired recently and how often?' and 'when did the cost alert go off?'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the provided examples effectively guide usage.

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