get_alarms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response format (ALARMS/ALARM collection) and the behavior for no active alarms (empty collection or NOT FOUND), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention authentication, permissions, or potential side effects, though as a read-only get operation this is less critical. The disclosure is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add response behavior. No wasted words; every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives a high-level response type and handles the empty case, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe the alarm object structure or any pagination, but for a read-only retrieval with optional filters, this is adequate. It's complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and when to call it.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds a natural-language summary of the filter options (partition, alarm ID, event ID, activity ID or owner), but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. It meets the baseline but adds little extra value.

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 clearly states the tool returns alarm information from the NetBox system, with a specific set of optional filters (partition, alarm ID, event ID, activity ID or owner). It distinguishes itself from other get_* tools by naming 'alarm information' and the wrapped NBAPI GetAlarms, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While it's implied that this is the tool for retrieving alarms, there is no guidance on choosing it over related tools like get_event_history or list_events, nor any exclusions.

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