get_alarm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 and extremely concise: a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter meaning, and return content overview. However, for a retrieval tool without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and possibly clarify the relationship with 'list_alarms'. The description is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'alarm_id' with its semantic meaning ('OCID of the alarm to retrieve'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. This adds essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on OCID format or validation rules. For a single parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic clarification.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific alarm.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('alarm'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_alarms' beyond the singular vs. plural naming. The description is accurate but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 like 'list_alarms' or other retrieval tools. It mentions retrieving 'a specific alarm' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose this over other methods. No explicit usage context is provided.

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