alert_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. For a get operation, it is likely safe, but this is not communicated, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices some completeness, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 (get by ID) and the lack of an output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain what the returned alert contains or how errors are handled. The 'options' parameter is left unexplained, and no context is provided for edge cases.

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 50%: 'alertId' lacks a description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its format or purpose. 'options' has a vague description ('Optional parameters') that the description does not improve upon. The tool's description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get an alert by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (alert), and the identification method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alert_get_all (which gets all alerts) and alert_acknowledge (which modifies state), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a specific alert ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like alert_get_all or alert_acknowledge. The context is clear, but no exclusions or recommendations are given.

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