Get Alert Scripting

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds the HTTP-mode-only limitation and clarifies the tool returns the current script, threshold rules, and configuration. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured annotations without any contradiction.

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 sentences, each with a purpose: what it does, what it shows, and how to discover counter names. No redundant phrasing, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and rich schema/annotations, the description is sufficient: it specifies the HTTP-only mode, output content, and a prerequisite discovery step. No output schema exists, but the description covers key behavior without needing to detail return formats.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a discovery hint for counter_name ('Use get_server_info with include_counter_model'), which goes beyond the schema's example values. This small extra guidance justifies a 4.

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?

Description states 'Read alert scripting configuration for a specific counter' with a specific verb and resource, and lists what it shows (current alert script, threshold rules, configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_alert_summary by targeting scripting config for a counter.

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 clear guidance: '[HTTP mode only]' is a usage constraint, and it explicitly directs to get_server_info with include_counter_model for discovering counter names. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the alternative guidance is helpful.

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