get_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it fetches contributing symptoms from another endpoint, details the return fields (name from alertDefinitionName, etc.), and notes limitations (no resource name, recommendations from alert definition not alert). No contradiction with 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: starts with a summary, then usage guidance, return details, caveats, and args. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return structure comprehensively, including key caveats about resource names and recommendations. It is complete given the tool's complexity and the annotations provided.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear context: alert_id is 'The alert UUID (from list_alerts)' and target is 'Optional Aria Operations target name from config. Uses default if omitted.' This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with '[READ] Get full details for one alert by UUID' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that list_alerts should be used for discovery/filtering, and acknowledge_alert/cancel_alert for actions.

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 states 'Use after list_alerts to drill into a single alert; use list_alerts (not this tool) to discover or filter alerts.' Also provides guidance on resolving resource names via get_resource and acting on alerts via acknowledge_alert/cancel_alert.

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