get_alert

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a composite fetch that also pulls recent em_alert_history rows and linked incident/change/problem tasks. That tells the agent the response is broader than a single record, which annotations do not convey. It omits error behavior for an unknown number/sys_id.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier forms, then appends the payload details. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes what comes back (alert + history + related task links), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before calling. A brief note on behavior when the identifier doesn't resolve would make it 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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the default of 10 and max of 50 for history_limit. The description merely restates the acceptable identifier forms ('number or sys_id') and that history is included, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one alert') and quantifies scope ('one') versus the sibling list_alerts, plus names the payload components (history, related tasks). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives such as get_alert_summary or acknowledge_alert, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_alerts, get_alert_summary, or the mutation tools acknowledge_alert/close_alert/update_alert. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'Get one'.

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