list_vcenter_alarms

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

The description discloses return fields (severity, entity, alarm name, acknowledged flag, trigger time) and the scope (across vCenter inventory), adding value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior.

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 [READ] tag, a single-sentence summary, a bullet list of return fields, and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary 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 purpose, parameters, and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. It could mention behavior when no alarms exist, but completeness is adequate given the output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters in plain language: 'target' as optional vCenter target and 'limit' as max alarms, with usage hint for many alarms.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'active/triggered alarms across the vCenter inventory,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like acknowledge_vcenter_alarm and reset_vcenter_alarm.

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 implies usage for viewing alarms but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides guidance on using the 'limit' parameter for many alarms, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance.

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