list_vcenter_alarms

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it explains the pagination envelope, that 'total' is the real active-alarm count, and that every alarm is collected before the limit is applied. This prevents misinterpretation of truncated results.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance, then follows with the necessary return-envelope details. Each sentence adds relevant information, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by fully specifying the return envelope fields and their meaning. The two optional parameters are already documented in the schema, and the safety profile is covered by annotations, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying pagination semantics around 'limit' and 'total'—specifically that 'total' is the true count and that limiting is applied after collection. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'max number to return' phrasing.

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 specific action and resource: 'List active/triggered alarms across the vCenter inventory.' It also distinguishes this tool from alarm-related siblings by positioning it as the starting point that supplies the entity_name/alarm_name pair needed by acknowledge_vcenter_alarm and reset_vcenter_alarm.

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 explicitly says 'Start here for alarm work' and explains that the output provides the exact pair that acknowledge_vcenter_alarm and reset_vcenter_alarm require. This clearly instructs the agent when to use this tool relative to its named siblings.

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