count_alarms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that 'non-archived' means 'active,' which is helpful. However, it does not disclose default behavior explicitly (that all alarms are counted by default), nor does it mention scope, pagination, or whether the count is global or scoped. This is a simple read operation, so the lack of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but more context would improve transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no wasted words and is easy to scan.

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 simple count tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. The schema covers the parameter fully, and the description conveys the tool's purpose. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating default behavior, but it is inferable from the parameter description.

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%: the archived parameter is fully described with its default and behavior. The description adds a synonym ('active' for 'non-archived') but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Count alarms.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alarms, which likely list alarm details rather than provide counts. The clarification about optionally counting only non-archived (active) alarms adds precision.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_alarms. It implies a use case for counting alarms but does not mention exclusions or direct the user to a sibling tool for different needs (e.g., detailed alarm listing).

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