list_alerts

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It explains the default date range behavior when detection_id isn't provided, clarifies the relationship between alert_type and subtypes with specific valid combinations, and mentions pagination behavior with cursor/page_size. The permissions requirement ('Read Alerts') is also explicitly stated, which is crucial for authorization.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then includes a lengthy parameter documentation section that duplicates schema information. The permissions statement is tacked on at the end without integration. Many sentences (like the detailed parameter explanations) don't earn their place since this information is already in the structured schema.

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 complexity (15 parameters, read-only operation, comprehensive filtering), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral aspects (defaults, dependencies, pagination), and permissions. With both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain safety or return values, and it provides adequate context for agent usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats much of this information (e.g., format examples, default behaviors, valid values) without adding significant new semantic meaning. It does provide slightly more context about subtype dependencies on alert_type, but this is largely redundant with schema examples.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('alerts from Panther'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_alert' (single alert) and 'list_alert_comments' (comments). It also mentions 'comprehensive filtering options' which sets expectations for a rich query interface.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (listing alerts with filtering) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings through its comprehensive filtering focus. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_alert' for single alerts or 'list_detections' for detection listings.

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