list_alerts

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it returns only alert summaries, includes a note that the model has no resource name field, and explains parameter effects (e.g., active_only returns only non-cancelled alerts). This is additive and consistent.

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 about 120 words, well-structured with a concise opening, return description, and bulleted args. There is no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema (not shown but present), the description focuses on what the agent needs: return summary fields, parameter details, and a crucial limitation (missing resource name). It covers the key aspects for correct invocation and interpretation, making it complete 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains all 5 parameters: active_only (default and meaning), criticality (allowed values: INFORMATION, WARNING, IMMEDIATE, CRITICAL), resource_id (scope by UUID), limit (range 1–500, default 100), and target (optional, from config). This provides essential semantic context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'List alerts from Aria Operations.' It specifies the return fields (name, criticality, status, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alert (single alert) and acknowledge_alert/cancel_alert (mutations). The verb 'List' and resource 'alerts' are precise.

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 implies when to use this tool (to list multiple alerts) and provides a critical usage hint: to resolve resource names, use get_resource(resource_id). While it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings, it gives practical guidance on what the tool does and its limitation.

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