prtg_alarms

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden. '[READ]' signals a non-mutating operation and the status-5 filter describes what is returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response shape, result limits, or authentication/config prerequisites.

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 definition is extremely short, front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, and uses a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential selection logic and parameter semantics. Yet because no output schema exists and no annotations are present, the absence of any return-value description and the unresolved meaning of 'the default' leave a modest gap.

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 and description both cover target, but the description adds meaning by explaining that it is a 'PRTG target name from config' and explicitly says to omit it for the default. This is sufficient for the only optional parameter, despite no enum or format details.

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 identifies a specific resource ('PRTG alarms') and its scope ('sensors in a down state (status 5)'), and the leading '[READ]' supplies the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like prtg_sensors by the down-state filter, though it never uses an explicit verb such as 'list'.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over active_alerts or prtg_sensors, and it does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the target parameter, which is operational rather than a when-to-use/alternative note.

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