alert_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: filters are applied before offset/limit, summaries are redacted, and there is no 500-alert total cap. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs when paging.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with zero filler. Each sentence carries distinct information: scope, filter ordering, and the paging loop.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields next_offset and has_more. But it doesn't say what a 'redacted summary' contains, whether filters combine with AND semantics, or why write-flavored parameters exist on a read tool — leaving a multi-parameter enumeration under-explained.

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?

At 29% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, and it doesn't. It never explains what name, symbol, active, target_id, or expected_layout_id filter or mean in a read-only enumeration context — notably the two schema-described params read like write-operation artifacts. Only the offset/limit and next_offset mechanics get any treatment.

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 plus resource: page through the server-returned alert inventory with redacted summaries. That clearly separates it from alert_get (single alert) and alert_fires (firing history). It stops short of naming a sibling for contrast, but the enumeration framing is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit loop mechanics (continue with next_offset until has_more=false), which is real usage guidance for this tool. However, it never says when to reach for alert_list versus alert_get, alert_sources, or alert_fires, so the alternative-selection decision is left implicit.

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