get_alarm_trend

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this returns aggregated data and constrains days to 1-90, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise with an emoji header, sections for parameters, return value, and hint. Every sentence is informative and efficiently structured, with no redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints, output format (aggregated daily/by type), and use case. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%; all parameters have descriptions. However, the description adds value by clarifying the default for days (7) and that the output is aggregated by day and type ('按日/按类型聚合'), which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 is a query for alarm trend statistics by time period, distinguishing it from siblings like list_alarms which lists individual alarms. It uses specific verb '查询' (query) and resource '告警趋势统计' (alarm trend statistics).

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 indicates suitability for weekly/monthly reports ('适合用于周报/月报分析'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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