alert_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'check', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether there are any side effects, required permissions, or what the output contains. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 only four words, which is extremely concise. It captures the essence without wasting words, though it may be under-specified. Still, for the level of detail provided, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description gives the basic idea but does not explain what 'triggered alerts' means or what the response format is. This is adequate for a straightforward check but leaves some gaps.

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 a clear description for the single parameter alertIds ('Specific alert IDs to check (all if omitted)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check for triggered alerts' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (triggered alerts). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'alert_list', which could also be interpreted as checking 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alert_list, alert_history, or other alert-related tools. The description does not provide context for choosing this tool over similar ones.

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