list_alarm_hubs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It indicates the operation is a GET (read-only) but does not mention permissions, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The HTTP method implicitly suggests safety, but the description does not explicitly confirm behavior beyond listing, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences with no wordy filler. It front-loades the main action and endpoint, then immediately explains the parameter format. Every sentence carries useful information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 a simple list operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, the endpoint, and how to specify the host. Since an output schema exists, return values are already defined, so that gap is covered. A minor missing piece is explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_alarm_hub, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'host' string with no description (schema coverage 0%), so the description's clarification that 'host' can be a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format) is essential and adds significant meaning. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('alarm hubs') and identifies the exact endpoint (GET /v1/alarm-hubs) and proxy mechanism (Fabric proxy). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_alarm_hub (single item) and update_alarm_hub (modification), so an agent can immediately understand its scope.

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 explains the host parameter format (console name, ID, or composite ID), which is useful for invoking the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_alarm_hub. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated, leaving some room for interpretability.

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