list_alerts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (truncated flag, total null when API reports no size), the need to check truncated, and the absence of resource names in the alert model. These are valuable behavioral details not present in structured 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 well-structured: purpose first, then output summary, pagination details, and an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it an appropriately sized and front-loaded description.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers all essential aspects: the full parameter list with semantics, return envelope fields, pagination handling, and resource resolution guidance. It is comprehensive for a list operation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains each of the 5 parameters, including defaults, allowed criticality values, the resource_id scope, and the limit range, adding meaning well beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 clearly states 'List alerts from Aria Operations' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_alert, acknowledge_alert, and list_alert_definitions.

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 context for when to use the tool, including a cross-reference to get_resource for resolving resource names. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as get_alert for retrieving a single alert, 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.