list_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by enumerating the eight possible status values, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the response is bounded — relevant given 'every' alert.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned fields, followed by the status vocabulary. The status list spans multiple lines but each value earns its place as domain vocabulary the agent cannot get from the empty schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not needed in prose, and a zero-parameter list tool is simple. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about volume/ordering or routing to get_alert for single-record lookups.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The status enumeration it does provide is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.

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+resource ('List every demo alert') and names the fields returned (machine, severity, status), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_alert, so differentiation is inferred from the plural 'every' rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to enumerate all alerts, versus get_alert presumably for one. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no note that the list is unfiltered and unpaginated, and no pointer to the singular sibling as the alternative.

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