atlas-list-alerts

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it clarifies that the tool returns raised alerts rather than configurations, and explains the default status behavior. This is useful behavioral information an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 directly follows with the key distinction and status guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content.

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?

This is a simple list operation with a full schema and output schema. The description adequately covers the essential context—what alerts are returned, how to filter them, and the distinction from configurations—making it complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, including detailed enum semantics for status. The description echoes the default status but does not introduce any new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains.

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 action and resource: 'List triggered alerts for a MongoDB Atlas project.' The second sentence disambiguates from alert configurations, making the purpose specific and distinctive.

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 context on what is being listed (triggered alerts) and how to use the status parameter (defaults to OPEN; set to TRACKING or CLOSED for others). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the distinction from configurations guides correct use.

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