vrm_get_alarms

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 mentions historical time range support but does not clarify safety (read-only assumed), pagination behavior, or how activeOnly interacts with time ranges. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks completeness.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose ('Check for any system alarms or alerts') and adding the key feature of historical support. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain output format, pagination, parameter interactions (e.g., activeOnly vs time ranges), or how to handle the duplicate time parameters. An agent would lack essential context to use the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that start/end/from/to are for historical retrieval, but does not explain the redundancy between start/end and from/to or how activeOnly works with historical queries. It provides modest added meaning.

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 tool checks for system alarms/alerts from solar/battery installations and supports historical time ranges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vrm_get_inverter_charger_warnings_alarms, which could cause confusion for an AI agent selecting the correct 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 implies the tool should be used for retrieving system alarms and historical data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., device-specific alarm tools). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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