get_active_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 usefully discloses a behavioral constraint (only ALARM-state alarms, not OK/INSUFFICIENT_DATA), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result-size limits, or ordering for what is implicitly a read-only list operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and the state constraint before the optional filter. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps around pagination/limits keep it from a 5, but given the tool's low complexity this is adequate.

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% and the single optional parameter is already documented as a 'CloudWatch namespace filter'. The description reinforces this with concrete example values ('AWS/EKS', 'Platform/RAG'), adding modest practical value, which lands at the baseline 3 when 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (CloudWatch alarms), and a precise scope (currently in ALARM state, optionally namespace-filtered). An agent can immediately tell this returns only alarms in the ALARM state, distinct from the log-oriented siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's scoping ('currently in ALARM state'), and the sibling tools (list_log_groups, search_logs) operate on a different domain so no explicit alternative is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of when the namespace filter should be applied.

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