zap_get_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Retrieve', 'Fetches'), supported filters, and return content. It does not mention potential rate limits or pagination, but these are not critical for a fetch operation.

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?

Concise and well-structured with a clear opening statement, followed by parameter descriptions and return value explanation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return content. Since an output schema is present, the return description is a bonus that reinforces completeness. The tool is simple enough that this description provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: url filter, risk_level with allowed values, and max_alerts meaning. This gives agents full semantic understanding of each 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves vulnerability alerts from OWASP ZAP with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like zap_active_scan and zap_spider by focusing on fetching alerts rather than running scans.

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?

Implies usage after scanning by referencing alerts from active/passive scanning, but does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Clear context is present but not fully explicit.

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