trmm_list_alerts

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds default filtering behavior and acceptable severity values. However, it does not describe response shape, ordering guarantees beyond 'newest', or pagination, so the behavioral context is moderate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose ('Current alerts') before adding the default behavior and severity values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can call it with no arguments or with a severity filter. However, there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the returned alert fields or fully clarify top and days semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to clarify parameter semantics, but it only explains severity values. The top, days, and include_resolved parameters are left to inference from their names and defaults; days in particular lacks a time-window unit or precise meaning.

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 clearly identifies a resource and action: it returns current alerts, defaulting to the newest unresolved ones. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like trmm_pending_actions or trmm_audit_log, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as trmm_pending_actions, trmm_audit_log, or trmm_debug_log. There are no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing hints.

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