get_unread_alarms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds return field details (tag code, type, time, description) and default limit, but does not disclose potential side effects for a read-only tool. It does not contradict annotations.

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 brief, uses an emoji for visibility, and organizes parameters and return info into clear sections. No unnecessary sentences; all content is relevant.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and the filtering condition. It mentions a usage scenario but lacks details on pagination or ordering. For a simple read-only list tool, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters fully. The description restates the parameter ranges and defaults, adding minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 queries unread alarm lists (isRead=0), distinguishing it from sibling list_alarms which likely returns all alarms. The verb '查询' and resource '未读告警列表' are specific.

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 includes a usage hint for security monitoring scenarios, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_alarms for all alarms, lacking explicit when-not guidance.

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