get_power_events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral detail: matching by DataSource or alert name substring, returning counts per pattern, and default pattern coverage. It omits pagination/limits but that is a minor gap given the strong 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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and includes concrete example patterns; the second explains the matching and return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the filtering scope, matching mechanism, and return summary ('counts per pattern'). It could be slightly clearer about how device/group scoping interacts with patterns, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's references to 'time window' and vendor/pattern names align with hours_back and patterns but do not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Filter alerts for UPS/PDU power-event signatures'), names target vendors (APC, Liebert, Eaton), gives concrete example patterns ('on battery', 'runtime remaining', 'input voltage lost'), and states the return shape ('counts per pattern'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic alert tools like get_alerts.

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 intended use case is implied clearly: use this when you need power-event signatures from UPS/PDU data sources over a time window. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_alerts for general alert queries) or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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