prtg_list_alarms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns only sensors in alarm states and frames it as a health/alerting query, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose and the intended use case with no filler. The key scoping detail ('currently in an alarm state') is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 read-style list tool, the description covers the core selection criterion and use case, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without guidance on return shape, default pagination behavior, or how the filter interacts with the listed alarm states.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds only the high-level notion of filtering by alarm state, which does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb (List), a specific resource (sensors), and a specific condition (currently in Down/Warning/Unusual/etc. alarm state). This clearly separates it from the generic prtg_list_sensors sibling and tells the agent exactly what the tool surfaces.

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 phrase 'PRTG's alerting surface - use this to find what's currently wrong' gives clear situational context: this is the tool for discovering active problems. It does not explicitly name the alternative prtg_list_sensors or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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