list_alarms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: returns a list with fields (type, time, area, content, read status), explains pagination (pageSize defaults to 50, max 500), and parameter formats. No 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 well-structured with clear sections for parameters and return. Every sentence adds information; no fluff. The emoji and header ('📊 查询') provide visual cue. It is front-loaded and appropriate length.

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 query-only tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: filters, pagination, return fields. With no output schema, it still lists key return fields. It feels complete for agent decision-making.

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 descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by providing examples for alarmType (e.g., '超时', '越界'), explicit timeRange format ('YYYY-MM-DD' or range), and a usage tip for isUnread. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 the tool queries alarm records with specific filters (tag, type, time range, read status). It uses the verb '查询' (query) and resource '告警记录' (alarm records). Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_unread_alarms' (focused on unread) and 'export_alarm_csv' (export format).

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 tip: '处理告警时设 isUnread=true 只看未读' (when handling alarms, set isUnread=true to see only unread). It provides context for parameter usage but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though siblings like 'get_unread_alarms' exist.

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