alert_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds beyond annotations by stating the return is 'sanitized detail' and that alert_id comes from alert_list, providing useful behavioral context. No contradiction found.

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 compact and every sentence serves a purpose: main action, usage context, parameter clarification, and pointer to sibling. The 'Read-only' tag is redundant with annotations but not a significant distraction. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (sanitized detail), how to obtain the id, and where to go for related data (alert_history). It is complete enough for selection and invocation without external resources.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining alert_id as 'the id it returned (from alert_list)' and target as 'target name from config'. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's structural titles.

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 the action: 'Get full details for one alert.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing alert_list for listing and alert_history for firings, making the specific scope (single alert detail) unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after alert_list' for sequencing and 'for its firings use alert_history' to direct to an alternative. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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