pls_send_sos_alarm

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and not read-only. The description adds context: it triggers real alarm notifications ('触发真实告警通知'), requires confirmation, and has a 100-tag limit. This adds value beyond 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 concise with about 5 lines, well-structured with a summary, parameter list, return value, and warning. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the action, parameters (with examples), return value ('操作是否成功'), and a safety warning. It lacks details about the alarm notification's content or side effects, but for a simple tool with existing annotations, it is fairly 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 baseline is 3. The description explains parameters in natural language and provides examples, but largely repeats what the schema already specifies (const for confirm, maxItems for tagCodes). Thus, it meets baseline but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 sends SOS emergency alarms to specified tags. It uses specific verbs ('发送 SOS 紧急告警') and resources ('标签'). Among siblings, it is the only tool that sends actual alarms, making it easily distinguishable.

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 advises cautious use and only in emergencies ('仅紧急情况调用'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for less urgent situations.

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