List Alert Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond it: the default returns policy rules, includeAssignments additionally returns scope attachments (environments, specs, monitors), and the origin of assignmentId for unassigning is disclosed. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the core action and scope come first, followed by the key parameter's effect and the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is logical and 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?

For a read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the behavioral difference of the main parameter, and the project-context prerequisite. It omits return-format and pagination details, but these are minor gaps for a simple list operation.

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 value beyond the schema by specifying what 'scope assignments' means (environments, specs, monitors) and connecting includeAssignments to the assignmentId/unassigning workflow, which the schema description does not mention.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the alert policies of a project with their rules,' which unambiguously conveys the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_alert_policy, though the list-vs-get naming convention makes the distinction reasonably apparent.

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?

'Requires project context' states a clear prerequisite, and the includeAssignments sentence gives a concrete condition for when to enable extra scope data. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, e.g., when to use get_alert_policy instead.

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