get_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the Alert model does not carry a resource name, and recommendations hang off the alert definition, not the alert. This helps set expectations about what the tool can and cannot return.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and usage, then return details, caveats, and arguments. Every sentence carries informative weight, though a more concise version could have been slightly tighter without losing value.

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 thoroughly enumerates the returned fields and caveats (missing resource name, recommendations on alert definition), and points to related tools for follow-up actions. This makes the tool almost self-contained for an AI agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: alert_id is 'the alert UUID (from list_alerts)' and target is 'Aria target name from config; default when omitted.' It also clarifies the return object fields, giving meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: get full details for one alert by UUID, including contributing symptoms. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_alerts (discover/filter) and investigate_alert (correlation), making it clear when this tool is the right choice.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use after list_alerts to drill into a single alert, use list_alerts to discover/filter, and use acknowledge_alert or cancel_alert to act on the alert. Also mentions investigate_alert as an alternative for correlation, fully covering usage context and alternatives.

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