vsz_get_alarm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool fetches the entire alarm list and filters locally, which is a significant implementation detail. It does not mention error handling or performance implications, but the read-only nature is implied and adequately covered.

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: a one-sentence summary, a brief explanation of the why, and a clean Args list. No redundant or irrelevant information is present, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 only two simple parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the unconventional behavior (list-then-filter) and documents both parameters, making it fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema only provides parameter titles, so the description's Args section adds essential meaning. It explains host as the controller IP/hostname and gives an example format for alarm_id, which is exactly the kind of clarification an agent needs 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 opens with 'Get details of a specific alarm,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It further explains the filtering approach and explicitly contrasts with the absence of a single-alarm endpoint, distinguishing this from list_alarms and other alarm operations.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a single alarm by ID, even noting the API limitation that forces a list-then-filter approach. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like vsz_list_alarms or state when not to use this, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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