Get Alert Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by indicating the output is aggregated statistics and frequency-based, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes value. The mention of the sibling tool is brief but useful, and there is no redundant 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?

For a read-only aggregation tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (aggregated statistics and frequency), the time range scope, and how it relates to get_system_overview. No output schema exists, but the description gives a reasonable hint of the return type.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions time range generically, but start_time and end_time are already well described in the 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 the tool's function: 'Get aggregated alert statistics within a time range' and 'Shows which alert types fired most frequently.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_system_overview by contrasting historical aggregated data with recent real-time alerts.

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 names get_system_overview as a complementary tool and explains the use case: 'Use alongside get_system_overview ... for historical alert pattern analysis.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exclusions.

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