List alert rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the rules are Grafana-managed (as opposed to data-source-managed) and come via the provisioning API, and it names the returned fields. It stops short of noting pagination or whether all folders are included.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier and returned-field list appended. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 enumerates the return fields (title, condition, folder, state) and pins the rule scope to Grafana-managed rules. The only gaps are pagination/result-size behavior and whether filtering by folder is possible, which are minor for a zero-param tool whose safety profile is already in annotations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead documents the output fields, which is the only semantic content available.

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 (List) and resource (Grafana-managed alert rules), plus the access path (provisioning API) and the exact fields returned (title, condition, folder, state). No sibling in the set covers alert rules, so there is no ambiguity to resolve; an agent knows immediately what this returns.

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 name and by the explicit scope 'Grafana-managed', but there is no statement of when to prefer this over other listing tools or any precondition/limitation. For a zero-parameter lister with no close sibling this is adequate but not instructive.

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