export_alert_rule

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 clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it exports a definition—no mention of output format, file handling, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource. It could arguably include a bit more context, but for its length it is well-structured.

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 one-parameter read-only export tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't clarify what the export returns (e.g., JSON definition, file) or how it differs from get_alert_rule, which could matter for an agent deciding between them. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 100%: the only parameter, alert_rule_id, is described as 'Alert rule ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Export an alert rule definition' clearly states the verb (export) and resource (alert rule definition), which distinguishes it from get_alert_rule (which likely retrieves a rule in a different format) and from create/update/delete_alert_rule. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 implies usage: call this when you need to export an alert rule definition. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over get_alert_rule or export_* siblings, nor does it mention any format or destination of the export. The context signals show many export_* siblings, so some guidance on when this is the right choice would help.

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