get_alert_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'get', enumerates return fields, and constrains to active alerts. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but those are minor for a simple retrieval.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the active-alert scope and lists the returned data. The relationship between monitor_id and the alert could be more explicit, but the schema clarifies it.

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 already describes monitor_id as 'Monitor ID of the alerting monitor' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter.

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 detailed information about an active alert and lists specific content (monitor status, trigger conditions, queries, notification config, playbook). This distinctly differentiates it from related tools like get_active_alerts (listing alerts) and get_monitor_status.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'active alert' and requiring a monitor_id, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No guidance is given for choosing between this and other alert/monitor tools.

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