get_alarm_hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (GET) and reveals the host format ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'). However, it doesn't disclose potential error behaviors, authentication requirements, or whether the response is paginated (it's a single-resource GET, so this is fairly inferable). The GET disclosure is meaningful since there are many mutating sibling tools.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the operation statement, the host format explanation, and the id provenance. It's front-loaded with the primary action, though the parameter details could arguably be reorganized. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-resource GET with only two parameters and no output schema describing return values, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to get the id, and what host formats are accepted. It lacks explicit error/precondition information, but for this complexity level the definition is largely complete. The sibling list shows list_alarm_hubs exists as the natural counterpart, which is consistent.

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?

The input schema only provides type string for both parameters, with zero schema description coverage. The description adds critical semantics: alarm_hub_id is REQUIRED and how to obtain it (from list_alarm_hubs' id field), and host accepts three distinct formats including the composite MAC:numericId format. This meaningfully compensates for the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one alarm hub by id'), and includes the endpoint path (GET /v1/alarm-hubs/{id}) which unambiguously identifies the operation. It also distinguishes this from list_alarm_hubs by requiring a specific id rather than a list.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: to obtain a single alarm hub by id, and explicitly says to obtain the id from list_alarm_hubs. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you need multiple hubs, use list_alarm_hubs instead), but the relationship to the sibling is clear enough.

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