bi_list_alerts

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description still adds real behavior: per-alert timestamps, no deduplication, limit default of 50, and a crossover warning that view='flagged' can also return clip items whose 'zones' is absent and whose 'msec' means clip length rather than alert length. That last caveat is exactly the kind of semantics an agent cannot infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the payload, then routing guidance, then parameter hints, then edge cases — a sensible ordering. It is dense and a little over-packed with quoted parameter names and typographic emphasis, but nearly every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and flagging the malformed clip case. It still says nothing about ordering, overall result caps beyond 'limit', or what raw=true materially changes, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter notes (date formats, view enum pointer, memo substring search, limit default) largely restate the schema; the only added interpretation, false-positive clip items under flagged, is also stated in the view schema field.

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 specific verb and resource plus the payload shape ('AI memo (object, confidence, license plate), zones triggered, clip path'), and the required 'camera' scoping. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings bi_list_log and bi_list_clips, so an agent can pick it without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('what fired when' / reconstructing an alert chain), an ordering rule ('Use this before bi_list_log when investigating a specific event'), and an exclusion ('no dedup'). The alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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