cls_describe_alarm_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context. It explains pagination behavior (offset/limit defaults), time format requirements (Unix timestamp in milliseconds), region handling (optional with default), and references other tools for conversions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by '查询').

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, parameter说明, 适用场景, 注意事项), each sentence adds value. The description is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool with no schema documentation, front-loading the core purpose while organizing details logically. No wasted text.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, usage scenarios, prerequisites (time conversion tool), and regional considerations. The only minor gap is lack of explicit read/write classification, but the output schema likely addresses response format.

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 fully compensates with detailed parameter documentation. The '参数说明' section explains all 9 parameters with clear semantics: required vs optional, data types (Unix timestamps, integers, strings), defaults, filtering purposes, and enum mappings for status (0-2) and alarm_level (0-2). It adds crucial context 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: '查询告警历史记录' (query alarm history records) with specific details about viewing recent alarm triggers, time, cause, and status. It distinguishes from siblings like cls_describe_alarms (likely for alarm policies) and cls_describe_alarm_detail (likely for single alarm details), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 '适用场景' (applicable scenarios) section provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for investigating alarm policy history, viewing all alarm records for a log topic, filtering by status/level, and understanding recent alarm trends. It also references sibling tools (cls_describe_topics, cls_convert_time, cls_describe_regions) for related operations, offering clear alternatives and prerequisites.

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