alarm_bad_actors

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains that window_minutes is inferred if omitted, defines chatter_window_s and standing_s, and details the return structure. This goes beyond simply echoing 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?

The description is well-structured with a terse purpose line, labeled Args and Returns sections, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return dict in detail, listing all keys and example values. For a tool with 5 parameters and a complex result set, this is remarkably complete, even including a usage example.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter's meaning and default behavior (e.g., 'chatter_window_s: A source with >=3 transitions inside this window chatters'). It completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'ISA-18.2 alarm-flood analysis over a list of alarm events' and elaborates with specific outputs like 'top offenders', 'chattering', and 'standing'. This distinguishes it from siblings such as alarm_flood_analysis or alarm_cascade by focusing on 'bad actors' (source-level analysis).

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 what the tool does and its inputs, making its intended use apparent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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