monitoring_alerts

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

The '[SAFE]' prefix hints at read-only behavior, but no annotations exist to confirm. The description does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'active' means. With zero annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide substantial behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The '[SAFE]' prefix could be removed if redundant, but overall it is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description provides minimal completeness. It states the source and action but omits details like alert status definitions or response format. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully self-contained.

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 0% (no parameter description). The description adds no meaning to the 'endpoint' parameter—it does not specify format (e.g., URL) or expected values.

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 states the action ('Get active alerts') and the specific resource ('from a Prometheus Alertmanager endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aws_cloudwatch_metrics or monitoring_uptime_check by naming the exact source system.

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 for Prometheus Alertmanager alerts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling monitoring tools. No alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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