Get Warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what kind of warnings are returned, whether they are active/current vs. historical, or any scoping behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no waste and nothing to trim, so it is not padded. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity comes at the cost of all useful content.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and there are no parameters to document. Still, for a zero-arg monitoring tool the description gives no clue about warning source, severity, or scope, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. With no parameters to describe and 100% schema coverage, there is little the description could add here.

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 '获取告警信息' is essentially a translation of the tool name 'get_warnings' back into Chinese, making it a tautological restatement rather than an elaboration. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_notifications, list_realtime_notices, or get_system_event_log, which plausibly overlap in the alert/notice space.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_notifications or the various notice/list tools. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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