list_alarms

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list active alarms' but does not explain if it returns partial results, pagination, or whether it is read-only (though listing implies read). No mention of side effects or authentication requirements.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence states what the tool does, second provides context. No superfluous words. Efficient and clear.

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 should hint at return format. It does not. However, for a simple list tool with clear use case, it is minimally adequate. Lacks mention of prerequisites or authentication.

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 50% (status has a description; limit has none). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not explain how status or limit affect the results or how to use them effectively.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'alarms', and the scope 'active alarms across the operator's Tracer SC+ deployment'. It also provides a use case ('Used by an on-call agent triaging what is unhealthy'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_equipment or list_buildings.

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 use for on-call triage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_trends or read_point. There is no mention of when not to use it or conditions for filtering by status or limit.

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