list_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists alerts with statuses, but omits behavioral details such as authentication requirements, pagination, whether both armed and triggered are always included, or any side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's nature.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb-object structure, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and unexplained parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the response format, result ordering, or the purpose of request_id and idempotency_key, leaving important gaps in context.

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 input schema has two parameters (request_id, idempotency_key) with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters or their purpose, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'listeler' (lists) with resource 'all alert definitions' and includes status scope 'with statuses (armed/triggered)', clearly distinguishing it from create/delete alerts and from get_triggered_alerts which likely returns only triggered alerts.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_triggered_alerts. It implies a general list-all use case but lacks any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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