tie_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a read operation (list) and explains basic parameter behavior. However, it omits details like pagination limits, performance implications, or access control requirements.

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, with a clear introductory sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the main action. Minor improvement possible by removing redundancy in the docstring format.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description only partially covers parameters and does not describe the return format or behavior (e.g., result count, error handling).

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter's purpose (profile_id, page, per_page, archived) and defaults, but lacks details like allowed ranges or the effect of null for archived.

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 'List alerts for a security profile', providing a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the name and description make the 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?

The description lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tie_attacks, tie_scores). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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