truenas_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this retrieves current alerts only, historical alerts, or both. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the alerts come in (e.g., severity levels, timestamps).

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 at just 4 words: 'Get active TrueNAS alerts'. Every word earns its place - verb, scope ('active'), system ('TrueNAS'), and resource ('alerts'). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what 'active' means (e.g., unacknowledged, current, within last 24 hours) and what information the alerts contain. The absence of output schema means the description should compensate by hinting at return format.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 'Get' and the resource 'active TrueNAS alerts', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'truenas_status' - both could involve retrieving TrueNAS information, though one is specifically about alerts while the other about general status.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'truenas_status' that also retrieve TrueNAS information, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for real-time alert monitoring while 'truenas_status' provides general system health, or if they serve different purposes entirely.

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