list_recent_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'list' suggests a read-only operation, and the time-window constraint is stated. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool has no side effects (e.g., does not acknowledge alerts) nor describe the return format, leaving some behavioral details opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 optional-parameter list tool, the description adequately conveys the core functionality, but it lacks coverage of return structure and side-effect guarantees. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete (e.g., mention read-only nature explicitly), but it is not severely underspecified.

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 input schema already provides full coverage of the single 'hours' parameter, including its meaning and default value. The tool description's reference to 'N hours' adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('alerts') and scope ('fired in the last N hours'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that target scheduled jobs or statuses. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to see alerts that have fired in a recent time window) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like acknowledge_alert or the status tools. There is no comparison to siblings, so usage guidance is only implied.

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