alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool mutates state, requires a device connection, or what the effect of actions like 'accept' or 'dismiss' is. The term 'handle' is vague.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Every word earns its place, but it could be more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the flow of operations, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with many unanswered questions.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Inspect or handle platform alerts' clearly identifies a verb ('inspect or handle') and a resource ('platform alerts'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get' or 'close', though it could be more precise about what 'handle' entails.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get' might overlap, but the description does not differentiate or provide context for when to inspect vs handle alerts.

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