atlas-list-alerts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds no further behavioral details about pagination, rate limits, or permissions. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description is consistent but not enriched.

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 a single sentence with no extra words, which is efficient. However, given the tool's 4 parameters and many siblings, it is slightly under-specified and could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should provide some idea of what the response contains, but it does not. Annotations are present but minimal. The description lacks completeness for a tool that lists potentially complex alerts.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema itself describes all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('List') and resource ('MongoDB Atlas alerts'), making the tool's purpose evident. It differentiates from sibling tools like atlas-list-clusters or atlas-list-projects by specifying 'alerts'. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or context, but it's sufficient for basic identification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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