get-health-local-alarms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description needs only to add context beyond these. It correctly states 'Get health check status' which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not add information about what the status entails or any side effects. No contradictions with 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Given the simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and support from annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about what 'local alarms' are or how the results are structured. Agent may still need to infer or test to understand the output.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not.

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 indicates the tool retrieves health check status for local alarms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate 'local alarms' from other alarm types, such as those covered by sibling tools like 'get-health-alarms' or 'get-health-virtual-hosts', which may cause ambiguity.

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 alternative health check tools. Given multiple siblings (e.g., get-health-alarms, get-health-certificate-expiration), the lack of usage context or exclusion criteria reduces its utility for correct tool selection.

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