get_guardian_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a compact summary and points to a full alerts file, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, whether alerts are persistent, or how the default output differs from summaryOnly=true.

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 two concise sentences with the key action front-loaded and no filler. The file name pointer is relevant and earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, but there is a slight ambiguity: the schema implies summaryOnly=false returns more than the compact summary, while the description presents the compact summary as the normal result. It also does not address behavior when no Guardians are active or what the exact response structure looks like.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it does not rise above the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Get pending alerts from all active Guardians,' and clearly says what is returned (a compact summary plus a pointer to codeguardian-alerts.json). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guardian_status or get_validation_results.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's purpose—use it when you need pending alerts from active Guardians. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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