list alerts

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by detailing newest-first ordering, the exact response envelope, keyset pagination semantics, 400 error conditions, and Cache-Control: no-store. It also clarifies that alerts carry notification payloads, which is non-obvious behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 information-dense but structured effectively: core purpose first, then endpoint/auth scope, then return shape, then pagination/error notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavioral facts are 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully defines the return structure including alert fields, payload subfields, and next_cursor. It also covers pagination, validation failures, and caching, making the tool safely callable end-to-end without needing external documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining how next_cursor is passed back as cursor until null, and by specifying when since and limit cause 400 errors; these constraints enrich the schema's otherwise adequate parameter descriptions without redundancy.

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 begins with a precise verb-resource pair: 'List every alert this workspace has fired, newest first, with the payload the notification carried.' It clearly distinguishes alerts as their own resource type from sibling log/tombstone/refusal tools, gives the HTTP endpoint, and explains the practical purpose (reacting to quality, cost, or drift events).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve fired alerts with their payloads for pipeline reactions, and it documents pagination and error behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource distinction from list_logs, list_criteria, and list_refusals is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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