get_dismissed_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state side effects, access requirements, or return behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence: 'Get previously dismissed alerts.' It is front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler or redundant 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, making it a simple retrieval. The description clearly states what it returns (previously dismissed alerts). However, since there is no output schema, details about the response format are absent, but this is acceptable for a straightforward get tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema has no descriptions needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('previously dismissed alerts'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_active_alerts'. It is not a tautology and conveys the exact scope of the tool.

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 context is clear: this tool is for previously dismissed alerts, and the sibling 'get_active_alerts' obviously covers active alerts. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when to use this tool vs. others, so it falls short of a 5.

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