list_alert_definitions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds value by disclosing the paginated envelope structure (items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint) and the caveat about 'total' being null when the API reports no size. It also reveals the derived nature of 'criticality' and the absence of top-level 'enabled' field, which are useful behavioral quirks beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then provides necessary behavioral and parameter details in a structured format. While a bit dense, every sentence adds information—pagination behavior, integration with set_alert_definition_state, and parameter constraints—so it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly describing the return envelope and advising to check 'truncated' before treating the result as complete. It also connects to sibling tools (set_alert_definition_state) and clarifies model-level quirks. This is a self-contained and complete description for list_alert_definitions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. The 'Args' section fully explains all three parameters: name_filter (substring, case-insensitive), limit (1-500, default 100), and target (Aria target from config, default when omitted). This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions and gives the agent the needed context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with '[READ] List alert definitions (templates that generate alerts when triggered).' This clearly identifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('alert definitions'), and adds the clarifying parenthetical that these are templates, distinguishing them from alert instances (e.g., list_alerts). It also references set_alert_definition_state, showing awareness of related tools.

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 provides clear usage context, explaining that alert definitions have no top-level criticality or enabled field and that returned IDs are meant to be passed to set_alert_definition_state for enabling/disabling. It also warns to check the 'truncated' flag before assuming completeness. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_alerts or list_symptom_definitions, so it falls short of a 5.

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