alarm_config_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '조회한다' signals a read-only operation, and the arim_whoami reference reveals a dependency. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, return format, or error behavior, which remain undisclosed.

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 sentence with two tightly connected clauses: main purpose first, then default parameter behavior. There is no filler, and the information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the critical default behavior of that parameter. It doesn't describe return values or auth prerequisites, but nothing beyond the session dependency is clearly required for a configuration-list read tool.

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 schema already documents adminId, but the description adds meaning by stating that omitting adminId resolves to the monitorId from arim_whoami. This clarifies the 'current session' concept in the schema and exposes a specific cross-tool dependency, going beyond the schema's generic phrasing.

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 states a specific verb, '조회한다' (retrieves), and a specific resource, '센서 임계치 문자 알림 설정' (sensor threshold SMS notification settings). This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like alarm_list by resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a concrete usage hint: if adminId is omitted, the tool uses the monitorId from arim_whoami. This is useful for calling the tool correctly, but it does not state when to choose this tool over related siblings such as alarm_list or monitor_search, leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.

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