mcp-ninjaone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, or what format the alerts are returned in. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling alert-related tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'alert', how results are structured, whether there are filtering options beyond device_id, or how this differs from other alert tools. The description leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain what 'active alerts' means, how the device_id should be obtained, or any constraints on the device_id parameter. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition given the comprehensive schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List all active alerts') and target resource ('for a specific device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_alerts' or 'list_alert_conditions', which appear to be related alert-focused tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_alerts' (which might list all alerts rather than device-specific ones) or 'list_alert_conditions', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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