alert_get

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the exact return projection shape, including 'raw_keys' and the intentional non-guessing behavior. It redundantly states 'Read-only' when annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, but it adds useful behavioral context about the response contents.

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 and front-loaded with a [READ] tag and a clear purpose. The return-shape explanation is slightly elaborate but earns its place because there is no output schema; only the repeated 'Read-only' at the end is redundant with the annotations.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive, how to get the alert id, and which sibling covers the alternative case. Input schema and annotations complete the rest.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema, especially for alert_id: it must match an alert_list row's 'id', is not the alert's name, empty strings are refused, and unknown ids return a 404.

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: 'Get the stored definition of one alert.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use this after alert_list' and routing alert firing questions to alert_history, so an agent can pick the right tool.

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 instructs when to use the tool ('after alert_list') and when not to use it ('For when the alert fired, use alert_history'). The alert_id parameter description also clarifies that the id must come from an alert_list row, not the alert's name.

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