list_nsx_alarms

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact severity filter (not a range), pagination with cursors, and that all alarms at a given severity are returned. No contradictions with 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 a clear initial statement followed by a necessary behavioral note and structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 list tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and key constraints (exact match, pagination). It mentions the output fields, adding completeness. No gaps for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains severity as 'Exact severity to filter on: LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, or CRITICAL' and clarifies the exact-match nuance. The target parameter is described as an optional name from config, adding context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 uses the verb 'list' with resource 'active NSX alarms', specifies the exact severity filter, and mentions the returned fields (feature, description, entity). It clearly distinguishes this read-only tool from sibling tools that perform other NSX operations.

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 explicitly states the exact-match behavior for severity and advises querying each severity separately to build a full picture. While it doesn't name an alternative tool, it provides clear context on when and how to use this tool, effectively guiding the agent.

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