get_warnings

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool's name itself, making it essentially a tautology. The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers safety, but the description does not disclose what kind of warnings are returned, whether it's a snapshot or streaming, or any other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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 phrase, which is maximally concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, and every character earns its place for such a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual differentiation from sibling tools. It does not clarify the scope or source of warnings, which could be important for the agent to choose it correctly. The output schema fills in return value details, so the description's completeness is just below adequate.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool.

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' (get warning information) clearly states the tool's action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_notifications, get_system_event_log, or get_messages, which could also relate to warnings in different contexts. Thus it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling get_* tools, explicit usage guidelines are absent.

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