Get alarms / faults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that alarms are 'decoded with sender device and fault type,' but does not cover side effects, rate limits, or what happens when no alarms exist. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with a separate sentence for usage context.

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 has two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (decoded alarms and faults). It is complete enough for an agent to understand its function, though a note on pagination or default behavior would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (controllerId and includeCleared). The examples in the description are about the output, not the parameters.

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 it retrieves active alarms and faults for a controller, with specific examples like valve short circuits and flow comm failures. It is distinct from sibling tools such as baseline_get_history or baseline_get_status, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for checking alarms but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context of 'for a controller' is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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