cronalert-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context by clarifying that incidents represent 'periods when the monitor was down,' which helps interpret the data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, keeping the score at a baseline level with annotations present.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Get incidents for a specific monitor — periods when the monitor was down.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations covering safety and world hints, the description meets basic needs but leaves gaps for full agent understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'id' (Monitor ID), 'page', and 'limit'. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips, resulting in the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get incidents for a specific monitor — periods when the monitor was down.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('incidents'), and scope ('for a specific monitor'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_incidents' or 'get_check_results', which would require a 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_incidents' (which might list all incidents) or 'get_check_results' (which could provide different data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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