recent_crowdsec_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds an important behavioral trait—that LAPI alert lists require machine auth—but does not mention other traits such as whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action and an important auth note. However, it does not explain the return format or what 'alert visibility status' entails, leaving some ambiguity. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'window' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no further meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value beyond the 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 tool returns 'recent CrowdSec alerts and alert visibility status,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'recent_crowdsec_decisions' by focusing on alerts rather than decisions, making its purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crowdsec_health' or 'security_summary'. The only contextual note is about LAPI authentication, which is a requirement rather than a usage decision. There is no explicit when/when-not or comparison to siblings.

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