alarm_list

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 implies a read-only operation but does not explain ordering, date filtering, pagination beyond maxRows, or whether results depend on context like the currently selected site.

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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list tool.

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?

The tool is simple with zero required parameters and full schema coverage for the one optional parameter, so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits practical context such as whether alarm history is scoped by site or time and what the response shape looks like, which an agent might need to invoke it confidently.

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 only parameter, maxRows, is fully documented in the input schema with its default and constraints. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 Korean description states a clear verb and resource: '조회한다' (retrieve/query) and '발생한 알람 이력' (occurred alarm history). It is specific enough to identify what the tool does, though it does not explicitly compare itself with siblings like alarm_config_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alarm_config_list or monitor_* tools. It does not mention any preconditions, required context like a selected site, or situations that would make another tool a better fit.

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