Alerts List Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that returned rows include condition queries, schedules, and state, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or filter interaction—modest value beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence is efficient and front-loaded. The second sentence spends its length describing quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, which are return-value details already covered by the existing output schema—space that would have been better used on the undocumented 'pattern' parameter.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the row-shape explanation is largely redundant, and the description omits the things the schema cannot convey: how 'pattern' matches, whether filters combine with AND, and any paging behavior. Adequate for a simple read tool but with clear gaps.

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 67%: database and schema_name carry descriptions (about quoting), while the 'pattern' parameter is documented nowhere. The description does not compensate—it never mentions filtering by name pattern at all, so the most consequential parameter remains ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List configured alerts') and enumerates what each row carries (condition queries, schedules, state), so an agent knows this is the read-side counterpart to alerts_describe_alert. It does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alerts_describe_alert, no note that all three parameters are optional filters, and no statement of what happens when no filters are supplied. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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