Check Window Active

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the three conditions that make a window active. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description's additional logic is helpful. 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no unnecessary words, and it front-loads the purpose clearly. Every sentence delivers value.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core logic adequately. The presence of an output schema likely details the return format, so the description need not repeat that. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or side effects, but for a read-only check, this is sufficient.

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, meaning the parameters 'window_uuid' and 'org_uuid' are not explained in the schema. The description does not compensate for this; it only explains the return logic. Therefore, the description adds no meaning to the parameters.

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: 'Check whether a specific maintenance window is currently active.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('maintenance window active'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_group_exclusion_status' by focusing on the window's active status.

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 useful context on when the tool is appropriate by defining the conditions for an active window (status, group, exclusion period). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it lacks full guidance.

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