get_alarms

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already confirms this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the response is an ALARMS/ALARM collection, and a system with no active alarms returns an empty collection or a documented NOT FOUND. This clarifies return format and error handling, though it omits permission or pagination details.

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 largely front-loaded and efficient, stating the purpose first and then covering filters and response behavior. It is a bit dense with parentheses and a semicolon, but every clause contributes useful information with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, which it does by describing the ALARMS/ALARM collection and the empty/NOT FOUND case. Combined with the fully documented input schema and readOnly annotation, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could mention authentication or pagination if relevant.

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 100%, so each of the six optional parameters is fully documented in the schema. The description lists the same filters (partition, alarm ID, event ID, activity ID, owner) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns alarm information from the NetBox system.' It also identifies the underlying API wrapper (NBAPI GetAlarms) and the available filters, making it clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which deal with access control, network nodes, and events rather than alarms.

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 implies usage by stating it returns alarm information with optional filters, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer that this is the correct tool for retrieving alarms.

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