get_alarms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns 'active alarms' but doesn't disclose whether alarms are cleared after being read (destructive read), whether it returns time stamps, severity levels, or how many alarms are returned max. For a read operation on potentially stateful PLC data, this is a gap.

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?

One concise sentence with zero waste. It states exactly what the tool does with minimal, efficient language.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate for contextual completeness. It doesn't describe the return format (list structure, fields per alarm), whether any filtering exists, or behavioral effects like what 'active' means relative to acknowledgment state. For a tool with no schema detail, this is thin.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully describes the inputs). With no parameters, there is nothing further to explain, so the baseline score of 4 applies. No param info is needed.

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?

Purpose is clear: 'Get all active alarms from the PLC.' The verb 'get' + resource 'active alarms' + source 'PLC' is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_all' or 'get_status', which could overlap in meaning.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. Given siblings like 'get_all' and 'get_status', there's ambiguity about whether this returns only active alarms or also historical/cleared alarms, and how it differs from get_all. No when-to-use or exclusions stated.

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