get_archived_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the query action without clarifying that it is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or how archived data is managed. The description does not address potential side effects or constraints.

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 in Chinese, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient with no redundant information, though it could be expanded slightly without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of having 5 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is lacking. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how archived warnings differ from regular ones. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for richer context.

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 all 5 parameters described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions of 'filter', 'sort', 'limit', 'skip', and 'withCount'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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: 'Query the list of archived alarms'. The verb '查询' (query) and resource '已归档的报警列表' (archived alarm list) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_warnings' or 'get_alarms' which likely handle non-archived data.

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 alternatives such as 'get_warnings' or 'get_latest_warnings'. There is no mention of context like 'for viewing only archived alarms' or exclusions for non-archived data.

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