protect_get_alarm_hub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds specific fields returned (id, modelKey, name, mac, state, etc.) and references documentation, providing valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists returned fields. Front-loaded with no extraneous words. Very concise.

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 it has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficiently complete for a simple tool with one parameter. Lists key return fields and references docs. Slight deduction for not fully detailing all fields but output schema covers it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear 'Alarm hub ID' description. Description mentions 'by ID' but does not add further constraints or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get full details for a specific alarm hub by ID' which specifies the action (get) and resource (alarm hub details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_list_alarm_hubs and other get_ tools.

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?

Description implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as comparing to protect_list_alarm_hubs for listing all hubs. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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