Get Alerts

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, but it does not contradict the annotations. It explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient given the annotations' clarity.

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 with three short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists alert types, and the third provides an exclusion and alternative. No extraneous 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?

Given the simple read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, returned content, and key constraints. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (severity, unread_only, limit), so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. The description only reiterates filtering by severity, which is already in the schema, thus no additional value.

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 the tool retrieves active alerts and notifications for the agent fleet, listing specific alert types (cost spikes, error rate increases, budget warnings, system health). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool for configuring alert triggers, ensuring no confusion.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use scenario and directs users to an alternative tool (configure_alert_threshold) for configuring triggers. However, it does not elaborate on when to use this tool over other sibling tools for similar tasks, which would make it a 5.

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