get_active_alarms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does ('Retrieve'), not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or what format the alarms are returned in. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 that immediately communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'current' means (real-time vs cached), what format alarms are returned in, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the good parameter documentation in the schema.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('current security alerts and alarms from Firewalla firewall'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_specific_alarm' or 'search_alarms', which would require more specific scope definition to earn a 5.

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 like 'get_specific_alarm' or 'search_alarms'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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