List Governance Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: unresolved-only by default, a 100-item cap, and the organization-context requirement. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core action with examples first, then constraints (default filter, cap), then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers scope, default filtering, result cap, and the org-context prerequisite. Minor gaps exist (sort order, response shape, how to establish org context), but nothing critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% — unresolvedOnly is fully documented in the schema including its default value. The description's 'Unresolved only by default' reinforces rather than extends the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the organization's governance alerts') and disambiguates the domain with concrete examples ('quality drops, breaking-change spikes, stale drafts, blocked publishes'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_governance_score or resolve_governance_alert without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Provides one operational prerequisite ('Requires organization context') and states the default filtering behavior, which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions relative to related siblings such as resolve_governance_alert or get_governance_score, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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