get_alarms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that each alarm includes 'suggested_actions' with remediation hints, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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: two short paragraphs covering purpose, return value, and parameter semantics. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and clear verb.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (alarms with suggested_actions), parameter usage, and behavior. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining target (optional, uses default) and limit (max number, use when many alerts). This adds significant meaning beyond the type and default in the 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 'Get' and resource 'active/triggered alarms' with scope 'across the VMware inventory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_events (events vs alarms) and list_ tools (different resources). The [READ] tag further clarifies the operation.

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 usage guidance for both parameters: target (optional, uses default) and limit (use when many alarms). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_events, so the when-to-use context is slightly lacking. Still, the purpose is clear.

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