window_now

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious operational detail: reads still work when the maintenance window is closed, which helps the agent understand the meaning of the status. It does not state whether the call itself is read-only or what the exact impact of an open window is, but for a zero-parameter status check the key caveat is provided.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and an important behavioral caveat without any filler. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status check with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool determines and gives an operational implication of the result. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents everything needed. No parameter explanations are required, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 states the exact operation as a question: 'Is the maintenance window open right now?' This clearly identifies the resource (maintenance window) and the temporal scope (right now), which distinguishes it from maintenance_list and maintenance_check siblings. It also adds useful context about reads still working when closed.

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 purpose is clear and the statement that reads still work when closed implies this tool is useful for determining whether maintenance-related restrictions apply. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over maintenance_list or maintenance_check, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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