watch.alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool reads alert records, but nothing about whether reading marks alerts as read, respects unread_only, requires auth, or has side effects. The term 'actual' adds little behavioral detail.

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?

It is extremely terse with no filler, but the single phrase is closer to under-specification than to efficient front-loaded structure. It does not organize or emphasize the important details an agent needs.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description omits usage context, parameter behavior, and any sibling differentiation. An agent could invoke it correctly by accident, but the definition does not provide enough context to confidently choose or parameterize it.

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%, and the description does not mention limit or unread_only or explain their effect. The parameter names and defaults are self-evident, but the description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'read actual alert records'. It gives a basic idea of what the tool does, though it does not contrast with siblings like watch.read-alert or watch.history, so an agent may still need to inspect other 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?

There is no guidance on when to call watch.alerts versus watch.read-alert, watch.history, or signals.list. No filters, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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