grafana_add_alerts

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 reveals only that Grafana Pro is required; it does not disclose whether this writes files, calls the Grafana API, requires authentication (despite the api_key parameter), or what side effects generation has. The 'Pro feature' hint is minimal real information.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core verb-resource pair is front-loaded. It is not bloated, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true completeness.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits what 'generate' actually produces (rule files vs. API calls), the role of the directory parameter, whether api_key is required, and how this differs from the numerous sibling alert tools.

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 50%: 'directory' is minimally documented as 'Project directory' while 'api_key' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning — it never explains what directory is used for or how api_key relates to the Pro feature it mentions.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Generate Grafana alert rules' — making the core action clear. The 'Pro feature' parenthetical adds a useful scoping detail. However, it doesn't differentiate from alert-related siblings like monitor_create_alerts, prom_add_rules, or alert_generate_prometheus, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping alert tools in the sibling list. The 'Pro feature' note is the only implicit usage constraint, and there are no stated prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions — the agent must infer when 'add' vs 'generate' vs 'create' is appropriate.

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