Find MagicSword alerts

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that filters run server-side before pagination, meaning total and page counts reflect the real result set — a behavioral trait not visible in 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?

Three tight sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the pagination caveat, then the usage example. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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 7 optional params fully documented in the schema, safety covered by annotations, and pagination behavior explained, an agent has enough to call this correctly. No output schema is present, yet the description touches on result counts; the only minor gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance.

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%, so every parameter (limit, since, offset, hostname, severity, acknowledged, mitre_technique) is already documented in the schema. The description names those same dimensions but adds no extra format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('MagicSword alerts') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (severity, ack state, time window, hostname, MITRE technique). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_events or triage_alert, though it never explicitly names what it is not.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: triage queries such as "unack'd critical alerts in the last 24h". This makes the intended use case clear, but no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. when to prefer triage_alert) are provided.

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