get_alert_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: the required API key scope, the map structure with valid keys, and the important empty-result semantics (built-in defaults). This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses observable behavior.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: auth requirement, operation, return structure, and fallback behavior. The key enumeration is detailed but necessary because there is no output schema. The most critical info is front-loaded, with 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers auth, exact return shape, valid key formats, and the meaning of an empty result. With no output schema present, the description provides all needed interpretation. Nothing an agent requires to call this correctly is missing.

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% — the only parameter id is described as 'Monitor UUID.' The description does not add any detail about the parameter itself, relying on the schema. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds no extra semantics for id beyond implying the monitor context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all custom alert message templates for a LastPing monitor.' It precisely names the operation and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_alert_template, which is the write counterpart. The return shape is also described, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies this is the read tool for alert templates and notes an auth prerequisite ('read scope or higher'), but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling set_alert_template or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so the tool does not fully guide an agent toward alternatives.

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