list_nsx_alarms

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: 'Returns the result envelope; check truncated before calling it complete' indicates pagination or truncation. The note about exact match severity is critical for correct usage. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context about how the tool operates.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then covers return behavior, severity note, usage workflow, and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return envelope and the truncated check. However, it does not list the specific fields returned beyond 'feature, description, and entity,' which would be helpful for an agent to understand the output. Still, it is adequate for a list tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains severity values ('LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or CRITICAL') and the exact-match semantics. It also clarifies the target parameter: 'NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted).' This provides complete meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get active NSX alarms at one severity, with feature, description, and entity.' It specifies the resource (NSX alarms) and the action (get/list). The specificity of the severity filter and the mention of exact match distinguish it from generic list tools. The name and description leave no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Start a health check at get_nsx_manager_status, then come here, then drill into the entity the alarm names with get_transport_node_status or get_edge_cluster_status.' It also explains the exact-match nature of the severity filter, advising to call once per severity for full coverage. This helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool vs. alternatives.

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