list_alerts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Your' usefully signals that results are scoped to the caller's account, but the description says nothing about whether disabled alerts are included, ordering, or result size. For a zero-parameter read the risk is low, so this is an adequate but thin disclosure.

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 no filler. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent may want, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple zero-param list with no output schema, the essentials are present, yet the description never indicates what an alert configuration record contains or how many might return. It is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.

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?

The tool takes no parameters at all, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description correctly implies the filter is the caller's identity rather than an argument.

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 ('List') plus a qualified resource ('failure-alert configurations'), so the agent knows exactly what domain object is being read. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read tools get_alert/list_jobs, but the verb+resource combination makes the distinction recoverable from the name alone.

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?

Use as a read of the alert inventory is implied by 'List', and the presence of get_alert/create_alert/update_alert/delete_alert siblings makes the intent inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_alert, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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