check_alerts

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

The description explains the return values (new and resolved vulnerabilities) and the comparison logic. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it updates the baseline. With no annotations, additional transparency about side effects would improve it.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose first followed by details. It avoids unnecessary words, though the middle section could be slightly tighter.

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 parameter, presence of output schema), the description covers the core logic, parameter source, and return values. It does not mention pagination or limits, but these are likely handled by the output schema.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining that project_id is the one returned by monitor_project. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and context.

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 checks for new vulnerabilities since the last scan, comparing against a baseline. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_project (initial scan) and monitor_project (setup) by focusing on delta detection.

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 specifies that the project_id must come from monitor_project, implying prior setup. It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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