alarm_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It correctly labels the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about pagination, rate limits, or what happens when filters are applied.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads 'Read-only, bridge plane' as the most critical information, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain how the five parameters affect the query, what the default behavior is, or how to use filters effectively. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, states, min_priority, source_filter, display_path_filter). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on parameter usage or meaning beyond the schema names.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Read-only, bridge plane. Query current alarm status.' It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only query operation for alarm status, distinguishing it from sibling write tools like alarm_acknowledge.

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 implies usage for reading alarm status and being read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide exclusions. It relies on context from sibling tool names.

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