slo_generate_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, auth needs, and output behavior. It only adds 'Pro feature' and does not say whether this writes files, provisions Grafana/Prometheus rules, or requires a Pro-tier API key, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the name.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the Pro feature qualifier is a useful note. It earns its place but is so minimal that it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 an unannotated tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, this description leaves too much unspecified: what alert format is generated, where the alerts are written, why api_key is needed, and what the agent should expect as output. It is enough to identify the operation but not enough to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 schema already documents directory as 'Project directory', and the description adds no new meaning for it. api_key is completely undocumented in the schema and also unexplained in the description, so with 50% schema coverage the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 clear action ('Generate') and a specific object ('SLO-based alerts'), which separates it from sibling SLO tools like slo_define_objectives and slo_calculate_budget. It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with generic alert generators, so it stops short of the strongest differentiation.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of slo_calculate_budget, grafana_add_alerts, or alert_generate_*. 'Pro feature' hints at a licensing prerequisite but says nothing about conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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