alert_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: missing webhook/condition fields are returned as unknown rather than fabricated. It does not explain why a read tool carries target_id 'required for changes' or what expected_layout_id does, leaving some tension unexplained.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat about unknown fields follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 single-record read with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials, and the unknown-field disclosure is a meaningful addition about return-data fidelity. It is still thin on what the 'native detail model' actually returns and on the three undocumented parameters.

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 coverage is only 40%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented, but alert_id, include_message, and include_webhook_url are not. The description only obliquely gestures at one of these by mentioning 'webhook or condition fields', and says nothing about include_message or the alert_id format. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 singular resource: 'Read one alert from the server and native detail model.' That distinguishes it from alert_list and alert_sources by scope (one vs. many). 'Native detail model' is jargon the agent may not parse, and no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just below a 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?

No statement of when to use this instead of alert_list, alert_verify, or alert_sources. The singular 'one alert' implies a detail-fetch, but there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that an alert_id from alert_list is required first). An agent must infer the routing on its own.

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