Grafana: List Annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing result ordering (newest first), the fields each annotation carries, and the type=alert distinction. Missing only operational detail such as truncation/limit behavior at the 1000 cap.

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 with the core scope front-loaded, then return shape, then a usage heuristic. The middle sentence's field list is slightly dense but each item earns its place by compensating for the absent output 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?

For a 7-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and returned fields so an agent knows what comes back. It could say more about empty results or how filters combine, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and already documents relative-time syntax, tag AND-semantics, the type enum and limits. The description only echoes the window concept and type=alert, adding little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema — 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 and resource ('Annotations in a time window, newest first') and enumerates what they are: deploys, incidents, notes, and alert state changes flagged via type=alert. That last clause usefully separates it from the grafana_list_alerts / grafana_list_alert_rules siblings, though those tools are not named outright.

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 scenario ('what changed around the spike?') and the recommended invocation pattern — a window around the spike with no other filter. Clear positive guidance, but no explicit when-not / named-alternative routing (e.g. 'for current firing alerts use grafana_list_alerts instead').

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