vsz_list_alarms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'List active alarms' implies a read-only operation and the 'active' filter is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return formatting, pagination, authentication needs, or any side-effect-free commitment beyond the verb choice.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a minimal Args block. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information. It lacks usage guidance and alternative references, but given the low complexity, these are not critical gaps.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the only parameter: 'host: vSZ controller IP or hostname.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Host' title, fully compensating for the lack of property 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('active alarms'), and scopes it to the vSZ controller. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_alarm (single alarm) and acknowledge/clear (mutating 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vsz_get_alarm, vsz_acknowledge_alarm, or vsz_clear_alarm. It simply states what it does without indicating context or exclusions.

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