Aktive Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: only non-cleared alerts are returned, and the fleet-wide mode returns only devices that actually have alerts. It stops short of describing ordering or return shape, but the extra semantics are real.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the parameter-conditional behavior. 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource scope and the serial/no-serial behavior sufficiently. It does not mention the client or includeHidden filters, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying what happens when serial is omitted (fleet-wide, devices with alerts only), which the schema's per-parameter text does not state. This adds genuine meaning for how the optional parameters interact.

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 clear verb (list) and resource (alerts) scoped to active/not-cleared ones, which distinguishes it from siblings like list-devices or get-device. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related alert/failure tools such as get-screenshot-failures, so sibling routing relies on inference.

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 explains the conditional behavior (with serial = one device, without = fleet-wide), which is useful context. But it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., get-screenshot-failures or get-backup-health-summary), so alternative-selection guidance is implied at best.

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