cls_describe_alarm_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a query/list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects like permissions required, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The description adds some context about default region behavior and references another tool for region info, but lacks details on response format, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or error conditions.

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 followed by a parameter section. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. Sentences are efficient: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second elaborates on what's retrieved. The parameter explanations are brief but informative. Minor improvements could include merging the two initial sentences or adding bullet points for clarity, but overall it's concise with minimal waste.

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 (which handles return values), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage but good description compensation, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, and hints at usage context. It could be more complete by explicitly stating behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination details) and differentiating from siblings, but for a query tool with output schema, it provides adequate context for basic use.

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. It provides a parameter section explaining all 4 parameters: offset (pagination offset, default 0), limit (items per page, default 20), name (filter by notification name, optional), and region (region like ap-guangzhou, optional, defaults to default region). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles and types, covering defaults, optionality, and examples. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., region string patterns) or interactions between parameters.

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: '查询告警通知渠道列表' (query alarm notification channel list) and '获取当前账号配置的告警通知方式' (get the current account's configured alarm notification methods). It specifies the resource (alarm notification channels/methods) and action (query/list/get). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cls_describe_alarms or cls_describe_alarm_records, which also deal with alarms but focus on different aspects.

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 context by mentioning it retrieves notification methods for alarms, suggesting it should be used when needing to know how alarms are delivered. It provides one explicit alternative: '可通过 cls_describe_regions 查询所有可用地域' (can use cls_describe_regions to query all available regions) for the region parameter. However, it lacks broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other alarm-related siblings like cls_describe_alarms, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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