alarms_list_alarms

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

No annotations exist, so the description should explain behavior. It states 'active alarms' but does not define what 'active' means in this context. The parameter include_pending is not discussed, leaving ambiguity about whether pending alarms are considered active. No mention of pagination, limits, or side effects.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks explanation of key terms like 'active alarms' and the effect of include_pending. It does not mention filtering or ordering. An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but more context would help.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'active' status. It does not explain how include_pending relates to 'active'.

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 specifies the action (List), the resource (active alarms), and the context (on a processor). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that perform alarm management operations like acknowledge, clear, or shelve.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., alarms_read_log for historical alarms). The description does not mention when not to use or any prerequisites.

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