get_alertmanager_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does clarify that this is a read operation returning alerts/silences and enumerates filters and the silences toggle, but it does not discuss output shape, pagination, errors, or behavior beyond the basic call. An output schema exists, which mitigates the return-shape gap.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a prerequisite line, then an Args list with no fluff. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

With all parameters documented, no required params, a stated prerequisite, and an output schema available, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly. It misses only minor context such as explicit alternatives and filter-matching semantics, so it is not maximally complete.

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%, but the Args block compensates by describing all four parameters. It adds useful semantics like time range bounds ('1-1440') and the default behavior of include_silences, going beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 opening sentence, 'Get recent alerts and active silences from Prometheus Alertmanager,' names a specific verb, resource, and return scope. It distinguishes the tool from observability siblings like query_prometheus by explicitly targeting Alertmanager alerts and silences.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires MCP_ALERTMANAGER_URL to be configured') and its purpose implies use when recent alert or silence history is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools such as query_prometheus or enrich_alert, nor does it give exclusions.

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