ListAlertMessages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '获取报警信息的列表' (gets a list of alert messages), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence ('获取报警信息的列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. There's no wasted verbiage, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of alert messages), pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with multiple filtering options and no structured output, the description should provide more context to help an agent understand what to expect and how to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'PageNumber' for pagination, 'BeginTime' for time range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'BaselineId' and 'RemindId' are mutually exclusive based on 'AlertRuleTypes'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '获取报警信息的列表' (Get a list of alert messages) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('报警信息的列表' - list of alert messages), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAlertMessage' (which likely retrieves a single alert message) or 'ListAlertRules' (which lists rules rather than messages), leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific list tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), context (e.g., for monitoring or debugging), or comparisons to siblings like 'GetAlertMessage' (for single messages) or 'ListAlertRules' (for rules). This lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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