cls_describe_alarm_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (e.g., configuration, notification channels, associated topics) but lacks behavioral details such as error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations in a bulleted list, and return information details. It's appropriately sized—every sentence adds value, such as clarifying parameter usage and output content. Minor room for improvement in flow, but it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it appropriately summarizes them. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining parameters and purpose. It's complete enough for a read operation, though more behavioral context would enhance it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'alarm_id' is required and explained as the alarm policy ID, and 'region' is optional with examples (ap-guangzhou, na-ashburn), default behavior (uses default if not provided), and a reference to another tool for querying regions. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: '获取告警策略详情' (get alarm policy details) and specifies it retrieves complete alarm configuration information based on an alarm ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cls_describe_alarms' (likely lists alarms) and 'cls_get_alarm_detail' (similar but not identical naming), though the distinction isn't explicitly stated. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '告警策略详情' (alarm policy details) are specific.

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 when needing full alarm configuration details for a specific alarm ID, as opposed to listing alarms or other alarm-related operations. It mentions an alternative tool 'cls_describe_regions' for querying available regions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'cls_describe_alarms' or 'cls_get_alarm_detail'. Guidelines are present but not comprehensive.

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