list_active_alarms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the data comes from a direct ConditionRefresh round-trip rather than passively collected subscription data, which changes how the agent should interpret completeness. The one remaining gap is return shape and volume, which the output schema covers.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: identity/scope first, mechanism second, routing guidance third. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 a rich output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it is fetched, and when to prefer it over the history sibling.

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% and the schema already documents both node_id and the timeout's error-vs-empty-list semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (alarm and condition instances the server is currently retaining), then defines the scope precisely as 'active, unacknowledged, or both'. An agent can distinguish this from read_events without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use this for 'what is wrong right now', use read_events for what has happened since you last looked. It names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it.

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