get_alarms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include counts per severity and type, and that there is an optional severity filter. This goes beyond a simple list and gives meaningful output structure, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or timezone details.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key output details without wasting space.

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 simple read-only nature, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and the high-level output (counts). It might have explained the response shape more explicitly, but the mention of per-severity and per-type counts gives the agent enough to understand the tool's result.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (org_id, duration, severity), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the severity filter but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organization alarms') with clear scope ('over a window') and output details (per-severity and per-type counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_marvis_actions or get_offline_access_points by focusing on aggregated alarm counts.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to list alarms over a time window with optional filtering by severity. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the context and examples make the use case apparent.

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