Get Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds context about the types of alerts included (cost spikes, error rates, etc.) and optional severity filtering, but does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond 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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states purpose and content, the second provides negative guidance. No extraneous text; front-loaded with essential 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?

The tool is a simple list operation. With annotations, 3 fully described parameters, and clear purpose, the description covers all necessary context. No output schema needed; the return format is implicitly a list of alerts.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds only 'Optionally filter by severity,' which repeats schema info. No additional meaning is provided beyond schema.

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 states 'Get active alerts and notifications for your agent fleet' with specific examples (cost spikes, error rates, budget warnings, system health notifications). It distinguishes from sibling tool configure_alert_threshold by explicitly excluding configuration tasks.

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 explicitly says 'Do NOT use for configuring alert triggers — use configure_alert_threshold for that,' providing a clear negative usage condition and directing to the appropriate alternative. This is excellent guidance.

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