get_alarm_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool queries alarm details, with no mention of response format, error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a deprecated read tool, some transparency is missing (e.g., whether it still works).

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 sentence that combines deprecation notice and purpose. It is fairly concise, but could be slightly improved by separating the deprecation and functionality. Still efficient for the amount of information.

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 tool is deprecated and has one parameter with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and deprecation. However, it lacks details about expected output, behavior for missing IDs, or that the tool still functions. Adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter 'id' described as '告警ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not provide examples, constraints, or format details. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 is deprecated ('已废弃') and points to 'get_warning_by_id' as the replacement. It also explains the purpose: query detailed alarm info by ID. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings by being deprecated.

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 explicitly says '请使用 get_warning_by_id 替代' (please use get_warning_by_id instead), providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and a direct alternative. This is ideal for an AI agent to avoid using this tool.

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