unlock_get_alerts

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'active' alerts but does not disclose that includeAcknowledged defaults to false, what constitutes an 'active' alert, or any details about the response format or filtering behavior. This is minimal for a getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could benefit from a brief mention of the acknowledgment behavior.

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 and no annotations, the description must provide context about what the tool returns and how it behaves. It fails to explain the difference between active and acknowledged alerts, or how this relates to sibling tools like unlock_get_upcoming. For a domain-specific tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter (includeAcknowledged) has a schema description that fully explains its meaning, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves 'active vesting unlock alerts', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like unlock_get_upcoming and unlock_get_calendar by focusing on 'active' alerts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast these related tools.

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. The description gives no context about what 'active' means, when to include acknowledged alerts, or how this differs from sibling alert tools (e.g., alert_list, unlock_get_upcoming). The agent is left to infer usage.

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