get_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: time units ('startEpoch/endEpoch use SECONDS not milliseconds'), quoting requirements for string filter values, and the unreliable device-name filter for Kubernetes. These are meaningful caveats that help an agent avoid failures.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important caveats. Every sentence adds value: the Kubernetes guidance, time-unit warning, and quoting rule all prevent common mistakes. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 16-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the main operational risks: parameter interpretation, filtering quirks, and K8s behavior. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists and 'Get alerts' reasonably implies a list of alerts. The major invocation pitfalls are addressed, making it nearly complete.

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 16 parameters. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: epoch parameters are in seconds not milliseconds, string filter values need double quotes, and for Kubernetes group_id should be used instead of device. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 action and resource: 'Get alerts from LogicMonitor with optional filtering.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_alert_details or get_alert_statistics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear context: retrieving alerts with optional filters, plus a specific rule for Kubernetes clusters ('use group_id ... instead of device') and common mistakes to avoid. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative alert-related tools, but the context is strong enough to guide correct usage.

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