neuron_monitor_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-style retrieval operation with no destructive intent, but it does not disclose ordering, time windows, retention, or whether returned alerts are consolidated or raw. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with the key action ('Get recent alerts') front-loaded and the clarifying parenthetical ('triggered conditions') directly after. No filler or redundant content.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, and the description adequately states what the agent will receive: recent alerts/triggered conditions from monitors. It could have included what fields each alert contains, but the existing description is sufficient for correct invocation at a basic level.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is already fully documented in the input schema with a description and default value. Thus schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('alerts from monitors'), and clarifies that alerts mean triggered conditions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling monitor tools such as monitor_list, monitor_check, or monitor_create, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage as the way to retrieve recent monitor alerts, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it instead of alternatives like neuron_monitor_check or neuron_monitor_action. It provides no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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