get_specific_alarm

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 'Get[s] detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to fully compensate by not explaining behavioral traits or return values, leaving the agent to infer details from the tool name and schema alone.

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 the single parameter 'alarm_id' documented as 'Alarm ID (required for API call).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific Firewalla alarm'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_alarms' or 'search_alarms', which would require mentioning this tool retrieves a single alarm by ID rather than listing or searching multiple 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a single alarm by ID, as opposed to using 'get_active_alarms' for all active alarms or 'search_alarms' for filtered searches, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the alarm ID.

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