cls_get_alarm_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool automatically parses URLs and returns formatted Markdown, supports both short and long URL formats, short links automatically redirect to long links for parsing, and it's a '免密接口' (password-free interface) requiring no additional authentication. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 clear sections (query methods, parameter explanation, URL formats, return content, application scenarios, notes) but could be more concise. Some information is repeated (e.g., the mutual exclusivity rule appears in multiple sections), and the Markdown formatting adds visual clarity but also length. Most sentences earn their place by providing distinct value.

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 complexity (3 parameters with mutual exclusivity rules, multiple input formats, rich output) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all input methods, parameter semantics, URL formats, detailed return content structure, application scenarios, and important behavioral notes. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values in technical detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only provide parameter names), the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter semantics. It explains that 'url' accepts both short and long link formats, 'record_id' comes from cls_describe_alarm_records results, and 'region' is a geographic identifier with examples like 'ap-guangzhou'. It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity rule between parameter groups.

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: '通过告警详情URL获取CLS告警的详细信息' (get detailed information about CLS alarms through alarm detail URLs). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('CLS告警的详细信息' - CLS alarm details), and distinguishes from siblings like cls_describe_alarm_records (which lists alarms) by focusing on retrieving detailed information for specific alarms.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It outlines two query methods (URL-based vs record_id+region), explains that record_id and region can be obtained from cls_describe_alarm_records, and specifies application scenarios including '快速查看告警详情' (quickly view alarm details) and '从告警记录列表查看详情' (view details from alarm record list). It also explicitly states 'url 与 record_id+region 二选一' (choose one between url and record_id+region).

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