get_firing_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool returns firing alerts from Alertmanager and that it is a read operation. It does not discuss side effects, but this is typical for a 'get' tool. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 and well-structured, with a clear title, purpose, Args section, and Returns section. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description covers the purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, which is quite complete. However, the default-value error in the parameter descriptions affects the overall accuracy, so it is not perfect.

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?

The description does provide purpose for each parameter, but it incorrectly states that active, silenced, and inhibited have default values of true, while the schema defines their defaults as null. This misleading information undermines the usefulness of the parameter documentation.

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 specifies the action (get) and the resource (currently firing alert instances from Alertmanager). It also clarifies the state transition from Pending to Firing, making it distinct from other alert-related tools.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Use this to see which alerts are actively firing') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with sibling tools. Still, the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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