List JSM alert activity logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: logs are system-generated, sorted newest-first by default, and opaque cursors are used for pagination. This is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an explicit use-case section, an Args list, a Returns sample, and examples. Every section earns its place and the most important scoping information ('system-generated' vs human comments) is 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?

With five parameters, a clear output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, which sibling to use instead, parameter semantics, response shape, and worked examples. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining that alert_id is the full id and not the tinyId, suggesting how to obtain it via jsm_list_alerts, and providing concrete examples that map use cases to parameter choices. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 system activity log for a JSM alert', and enumerates the content covered: 'every state transition, notification, escalation and automated action'. It also distinguishes itself from jsm_list_alert_notes, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries like "why did nobody get paged?" and "when was this escalated and to whom?", and explicitly says human comments live in jsm_list_alert_notes instead. This clear exclusion and alternative make the usage boundary unambiguous.

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