get_alarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only status, side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The description only states the content of the configuration, leaving agents uncertain about safety and failure modes.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes parameter documentation in a clean docstring format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the main return content. It is sufficient for most use cases, though could add details about error handling or prerequisites (e.g., file system access) for completeness.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'project_path' is a path to directory or .zip, and 'pipeline_name' comes from 'list_alarms' output. This adds meaningful context beyond raw schema, though more format details (e.g., required permissions) could be included.

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 'Get an alarm pipeline's configuration including stages, notifications, and transitions.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('alarm pipeline's configuration'), and distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like 'list_alarms' which lists alarms but does not retrieve full configuration.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through parameter descriptions, especially noting that 'pipeline_name' is derived from 'list_alarms output'. This hints at a dependency and when to use this tool after listing. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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