list_vcenter_alarms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by detailing the output fields (severity, entity name/type, alarm name, acknowledged flag, trigger time). No contradictions.

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: a clear header line, one line about output, then bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description appropriately covers the input parameters and output content. It is complete for a list tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: target is optional with a default, limit is optional for controlling result size. This adds 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 verb 'list' and resource 'active/triggered alarms' with scope 'across the vCenter inventory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acknowledge_vcenter_alarm and reset_vcenter_alarm by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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 when to use the limit parameter ('Use when many alarms are active') and specifies that target is optional. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for filtering or acknowledging alarms.

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