list_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the ranking order and the exact score decomposition (graph score x event materiality x (1 + trigger match)). It omits pagination/limit behavior and the fact that only open alerts are returned by default, which matters behaviorally.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the score formula. No filler, and the formula is dense but genuinely useful rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the scoring formula covers interpretation. But for a three-parameter list tool with 0 required params, the description should at minimum disclose the default 'open' status filter — an agent could wrongly assume it returns all alerts, including resolved and dismissed ones.

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 only 33% — just 'grouped' is documented in the schema. Neither the status enum filter (defaulting to 'open') nor thesis_id is explained anywhere, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions filtering by status or narrowing to a single thesis.

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 names a specific resource (alerts raised by events on theses) and the ordering contract (highest score first), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as alert_stats or resolve_alert, so an agent must infer the boundary from names 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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool that surfaces alerts for triage, and the scoring breakdown hints at prioritization use. However, it never states when to prefer it over alert_stats, when to use the thesis_id scoping, or that it is the entry point that feeds resolve_alert.

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