Get alert templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the auth scope requirement, the exact return structure, and crucially the semantics of an empty result ('every alert uses the built-in plain-language defaults'), which is a diagnostic insight 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?

Front-loads the auth requirement, then the return shape, then the key enumeration, then the empty-result meaning. The key list is long but each enumeration maps directly to a possible template key, so it earns its space. Slightly dense, but no wasted sentence.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return value as a key-to-template-string map, enumerating the valid keys and cause format, and describing the empty-result case. An agent has everything needed to interpret the response without opening anything else.

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% with a single fully-documented parameter ('id': 'Monitor UUID.'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the id beyond what the schema already says, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Gets a monitor's custom alert message templates') and immediately defines the concrete return shape as a map of event-type keys to template strings. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set_alert_template, which is the write counterpart.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires the read scope or higher') but never states when to call this versus set_alert_template or update_monitor, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the tool name and the read-only nature of the operation rather than being spelled out.

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