list_alerts

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: default filtering excludes acknowledged alerts, and the non-default mode is capped at 100 results including acknowledged, resolved and silenced states. The result cap in particular is information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the default behavior is front-loaded before the override case. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it and interpret the result set size. It doesn't state ordering (which alerts count as the "last 100") or the fields returned, which would fully close the gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining what the boolean actually toggles between — active-unacknowledged only versus the last 100 alerts across all states — which the terse schema text ("Only return active alerts, default true") does not convey.

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+resource ("List alerts") and immediately defines the default result set. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like acknowledge_alert or list_alert_escalation_runs, but the scope is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for changing behavior ("Set active_only to false to return the last 100 alerts instead") and describes what that alternative result set contains. It stops short of pointing to the sibling tool to use when the agent actually wants to act on an alert.

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