EMQX Alarms

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) and schema. It does not mention filtering, response shape, or side effects, and 'first place to look' is usage guidance, not behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded phrase with zero filler—concise, memorable, and every word earns its place. It is a model of brevity.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient usage context. It could explain the meaning of 'alarms' or return structure, but the output schema and parameter schema cover those aspects.

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?

The single parameter active_only is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('True for currently firing alarms, False for history'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (broker alarms) and positions it as a diagnostic entry point, which distinguishes it from sibling diagnostics. However, it relies on the tool name for the verb 'list' rather than explicitly stating the action.

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 first place to look when something feels wrong' clearly indicates when to use this tool for troubleshooting. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, preventing a score of 5.

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