Grafana: List Alerts

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true / openWorldHint=true, the description discloses real behavior: mandatory severity ordering, suppression excluded by default, `common_labels` deduplicated once, and — notably — that severity/alertname counts cover the entire match set even when the returned list is truncated by limit. That last detail is a non-obvious result-shape trait no structured field conveys.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core question ('What is alerting right now') and ending with the aggregation caveat. No filler, though the final sentence packs two distinct behaviors (common_labels and counts-under-truncation) into one clause.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, open-world read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, ordering, default filtering, deduplication, and count semantics under pagination. It leaves the multi-source aggregation model (how grafana vs datasource alerts combine) and any auth expectations unstated, but nothing blocking for a correct call.

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 all six parameters are already documented with examples and enum semantics. The description only reinforces the state parameter's suppression behavior and the truncation effect of limit; it adds little syntax or meaning the schema doesn't already carry.

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?

It states exactly what the tool returns — the alerts currently firing in Grafana's Alertmanager plus every Alertmanager datasource, ordered most-severe-first, with since/summary/description fields. That phrasing cleanly separates it from siblings like grafana_list_alert_rules (rule definitions) and grafana_list_silences (suppressions) without needing to name them.

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 rather than stated: the description tells you what 'right now' means and how suppressed alerts are gated behind state=suppressed or all, but never says when to reach for this vs grafana_list_alert_rules or grafana_list_silences. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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