get_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether it throws or returns null for an unknown ID, whether the caller needs ownership or scopes, or whether soft-deleted alerts are visible — all material for a by-ID lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key phrase 'single alert configuration' arrives immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 minimal one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (what it returns, keyed by ID). The remaining gaps — not-found behavior, ID format, relation to list_alerts — are small individually but all fall on the description since no annotations or schema docs exist.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single 'id' parameter is documented nowhere except the phrase 'by its ID'. That adds no format detail (UUID, slug, numeric, prefix), no example, and no hint about where an agent would obtain a valid ID — the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get a single alert configuration') plus the lookup key ('by its ID'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from list_alerts by saying 'single', but never names a sibling or states the relationship explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_alerts (which can also surface alert configurations), no prerequisite or permission note, and no guidance on what happens when the ID does not exist. Usage must be inferred entirely from the noun phrase 'single alert configuration by its ID'.

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