get_monitor_downtime_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'active downtimes' which adds some behavioral context (filtering by status), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially misleading parameter implication, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' means, how downtimes are returned (e.g., list format, fields), or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns operational data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying 'for the specified monitor', implying a monitor identifier is required, but since the schema shows no parameters, this might be misleading or indicate a mismatch. Given the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description attempts to clarify scope.

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 ('all active downtimes for the specified monitor'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_downtime' (singular) or 'downtimes_list', which might have different scopes or parameters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_downtime' (likely for a single downtime) and 'downtimes_list' (possibly broader), there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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