alert_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List all alerts' without revealing any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, scope (e.g., user-specific vs. global), or whether it returns only current alerts versus historical ones. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 succinct sentence, 'List all alerts', that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional filter, and the schema covers the filter. However, with no output schema and no mention of what fields or format the alert list returns, the description is only minimally adequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'status' parameter with enum values and a default, yielding 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not improve upon what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'List all alerts' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (alerts). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'alert_history', so it misses the full sibling-differentiation criterion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'alert_history' or 'alert_check'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so it offers no practical usage direction beyond the obvious.

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