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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without explaining consequences such as suppressing notifications, requiring specific permissions, or altering the acknowledged state in a way that affects future monitoring behavior.

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—two short sentences that capture the essential purpose without any redundant wording or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core function.

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 is simple and no output schema is present, the description should still explain what 'acknowledge' means in operational terms. It does not mention that acknowledging typically dismisses or marks a problem as handled, nor does it clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, leaving a knowledgeable agent to infer expected behavior.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters, exceeding the 80% coverage threshold, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. Descriptions like 'Type: host or service' and 'Service description (for service ack)' add some useful context, but they remain minimal and do not elaborate on value constraints or relationships between 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 action (acknowledge) and the target (host or service problem), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_comment or schedule_downtime, the name and description leave little doubt about the tool's function.

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, such as adding a comment or rescheduling a check. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Activate changes' implies a mutating, potentially irreversible action, but no details about impact on systems, downtime, or rollback are given. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 very concise with no fluff, but it achieves brevity at the expense of necessary detail. Structure is simple, yet the lack of explanatory context makes it feel incomplete rather than efficiently written.

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 role in a change workflow, the description omits crucial context: what triggers activation, whether it's reversible, and how it relates to get_pending_changes. It feels isolated and does not provide enough background for an agent to use it correctly in a larger operation.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions, but they are minimal and ambiguous. 'List of site names' is generic and doesn't clarify whether empty means all sites. 'Force activation' for force_foreign_changes doesn't explain what 'foreign' means, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 action (activate/deploy) and the resource (pending configuration changes). It conveys the core purpose effectively, though it could more explicitly contrast with related tools like get_pending_changes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used, such as after making changes or before monitoring. It does not reference alternatives like get_pending_changes or indicate typical workflow ordering.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It simply states the action 'Add comment' without mentioning whether it is a mutation, requires special permissions, is reversible, or has any impact on monitoring state. The description lacks behavioral transparency.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose immediately. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 simple comment-adding operation, the description is mostly complete. It indicates the target (host or service) and the action. However, it does not clarify the relationship between 'comment_type' and 'service_description' (e.g., that service_description is required only when comment_type is 'service'), nor does it mention whether a comment is persistent by default. These details would make the description fully self-contained.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Persistent comment' does not explain what persistent means, and 'comment_type' only says 'Type: host or service' without enumerating allowed values). The description adds little beyond the schema's basic labels, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Add comment to host or service'. The verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment' are specific, and the target (host or service) is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like acknowledging problems or scheduling downtimes, nor does it differentiate scenarios where adding a comment is preferred over other actions. The usage context is left completely to the reader.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, duplicate handling, or failure modes. The description only restates the action without any behavioral details.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Add user to contact group' and 'Assign user to contact group' convey the same meaning. The second clause does not earn 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?

The description lacks essential context such as prerequisites (user/group existence), expected effects, potential errors, or output behavior. With no output schema and no additional guidance, an agent may not be able to use this tool correctly in edge cases.

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 parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are tautological ('Username', 'Contact group name') and add no real meaning beyond the field names. Schema coverage is high, so the baseline is 3, but no additional semantic information is provided.

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 a specific action and resource: adding a user to a contact group. It is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_user_from_group.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contact_group, create_contact_group, or remove_user_from_group. The only implied usage comes from the tool's name and minimal description.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, but it only mentions creation. It does not mention partial failure behavior, activation requirements, permission needs, or the impact of the optional bake_agent flag.

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 very short but redundant: 'Bulk create hosts' and 'Create multiple hosts in a single operation' communicate the same idea. The emoji and repeated phrasing add no real 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should supply more operational context. It omits usage guidance, expected results, and side-effect warnings, leaving the agent to infer important details from the schema and tool name alone.

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 coverage is 100%, with entries and bake_agent both described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('hosts'), and scope ('Bulk'/'multiple hosts in a single operation'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from single-host creation sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this bulk operation versus the single-host create tool, nor any mention of operational steps like activation after creation. The description only states what the tool does, not how to choose it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the mutation ('create') but does not mention important operational details such as duplicate handling, partial failure behavior, validation, or whether changes require activation.

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 compact and free of filler. It conveys the essential purpose in two short phrases and does not waste words.

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?

The tool is a simple bulk-create operation with a low-complexity schema. However, the absence of any output schema or return-value description leaves the agent guessing about success/failure reporting and response format, so completeness is only moderate.

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 provides basic descriptions for `entries`, `name`, and `alias`, and the description adds no further semantic detail. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 with a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('service groups'), and a distinguishing scope ('multiple at once'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling single-create tool `vibemk_create_service_group`.

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 implies batch usage ('Create multiple service groups at once') but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling `vibemk_create_service_group` or other bulk operations. No prerequisites or trade-offs are mentioned.

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

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

The word 'Delete' implies destruction, but there are no annotations to cover safety, and the description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it affects associated rules or configurations. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the responsibility and does not fully disclose side effects.

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, using a single sentence that captures the action and scope. No unnecessary words or filler. The title-like prefix 'Bulk delete service groups' is redundant but harmless, and overall structure is lean.

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 simple bulk deletion operation, the description covers the essential information: what is being deleted, the plural nature, and the parameter. It does not describe error handling, partial success behavior, or return values, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is adequately complete for an agent to understand the operation.

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 only parameter 'entries' is described as 'List of service group names to delete', which directly explains its purpose and matches the schema's array-of-strings type. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw type, but there is no additional detail about constraints, formatting, or existence requirements.

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 action ('Delete') and the target resource ('service groups'), and the inclusion of 'multiple' and 'Bulk' in the name and description differentiates it from the singular 'delete_service_group' sibling. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 says 'Delete multiple service groups at once', which implies it is meant for batch deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast with using the singular 'delete_service_group' or mention when one would prefer this bulk variant. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'update'. It does not mention whether changes are applied immediately, require activation, are reversible, or how partial failures are handled.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and scope efficiently.

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 bulk update operation, critical context is missing: the expected payload format for 'entries', what update operations are supported, whether the operation is atomic, and what the response contains. The description is far too thin for practical use.

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 single parameter 'entries' is described only as 'List of host update entries', providing no structure, required fields, or example. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('hosts'), and the word 'multiple' signals the bulk scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular update_host tool beyond the name.

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 use this bulk operation versus update_host or bulk_create_hosts. It only restates the tool's name without providing selection criteria or examples.

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

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

No annotations are present and the description provides no information about side effects, such as whether changes are immediately activated, whether partial failures can occur, or whether the operation is destructive. This lack of transparency is significant for a bulk write operation.

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 and to the point, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It effectively conveys the core purpose in one sentence.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits important context such as whether activation of changes is needed, how partial failures are handled, or what the return value looks like. Given the absence of an output schema, this missing information reduces completeness.

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 schema descriptions for the parameters are already clear (name, alias), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified expected values or constraints.

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 action (update) and the resource (service groups) and indicates bulk operation, distinguishing it from single-update tools. However, it does not mention which attributes can be updated, though the schema provides that.

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 implies use for multiple service groups but does not explicitly contrast it with the single-update sibling (vibemk_update_service_group) or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No direct usage guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or any potential side effects or limitations. The 'check' wording implies read-only but is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The emoji adds visual clarity, the verb-object structure is direct, and the distinguishing clause is necessary for differentiation. Every word contributes 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose and a key differentiator, but it lacks details about the output structure or how the returned data distinguishes host-level from service-level downtimes. Without an output schema, some additional context would be helpful for full completeness.

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 single parameter host_name is already fully described in the input schema ('Host name to check downtime status for'), and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Check host downtime status') and the resource ('host'), and adds a distinguishing detail about separating host-level from service-level downtimes, which clarifies its unique purpose among similar tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_downtimes, list_downtimes, or get_active_downtimes. It only hints at the distinguishing output feature but provides no direct usage guidance or exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether it throws errors on mismatch, or any side effects. The word 'compare' suggests a non-mutating operation but this is not confirmed.

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 short and gets to the point in two concise parts. It's efficient but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. Front-loads the action 'Compare host states' clearly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the comparison result looks like, whether it's a diff, a boolean, or a detailed report. It also doesn't explain any prerequisites like host existence or authentication. Given the complexity of comparing configurations, this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%—both parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It could have clarified what format desired_attributes should take (e.g., key-value pairs, specific attribute names) but doesn't.

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 identifies the tool as comparing host states (current vs desired configuration). The verb 'compare' is specific and distinguishes it from get/update tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 implies usage for checking drift between current and desired host configuration, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar tools like get_host_config or validate_host_config. The intent is inferable but not stated directly.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'create' without mentioning whether changes require activation, whether it overwrites existing hosts, or any other behavioral consequences.

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, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. The emoji is extra but does not harm clarity.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits any indication of return values, success/failure behavior, or post-create steps. For a simple creation tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic ('Folder path', 'Additional host attributes') and add little beyond the parameter names. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Create cluster host') and resource ('cluster host with multiple nodes'), distinguishing it from general host creation tools in the sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_host' or 'bulk_create_hosts'. The description does not mention cluster-specific use cases or exclusion conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Add new contact group' and does not mention permissions, duplicate handling, or whether activation of Checkmk changes is required.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but 'Create contact group' and 'Add new contact group' are largely redundant. It contains no unnecessary detail, though the redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.

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 simple create operation with a small schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context such as name uniqueness, whether members are required, or whether created groups need activation to take effect.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters ('Group name', 'Display alias', 'Group members'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create contact group' and 'Add new contact group', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling update/delete/retrieve contact group tools.

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 implies use when creating a new contact group, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as updating or deleting. Usage is inferred from the verb rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a folder is created but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing folders), required permissions, validation behavior, or error conditions. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 very concise, consisting of two short phrases. It is not verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, though that is penalized in other dimensions. As a standalone statement, it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints on the folder path or parent relationship. The context of how folder creation fits into the system is not addressed, leaving the agent without enough information to anticipate outcomes.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (title, folder, parent), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline is 3 given 100% schema coverage, and the description does not enhance understanding of 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 action ('Create folder') and the resource ('folder'), and adds specificity with 'Add new folder to the structure'. This distinguishes it from sibling folder operations like get, delete, update, and move, so an agent can easily identify when to use this tool.

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. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or reference other folder operations. For a tool with many siblings, this is a notable gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic bulk API behavior for multiple hosts, which is a useful trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., modifying monitoring state), permissions, prerequisites, or failure behavior. For a creation operation, this is minimal disclosure; it also omits that 'bake_agent' is only relevant in bulk mode (though schema covers it).

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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key behavior about bulk API. It is concise with no filler, but it omits useful context like when to use it or what it returns. The length is appropriate for the limited information provided, though it could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.

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 complex oneOf schema with two modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or prerequisites. It also doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus the dedicated bulk tool, which is a notable gap given the overlapping sibling. The agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke it in all cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a note about automatic bulk API usage, which relates to the 'hosts' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. The 'bake_agent' parameter is described in the schema as 'bulk mode only', which is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already covers it, so the description adds little value here.

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 action (Create host(s)), the resource (host(s)), and the effect (add to monitoring). It also notes the automatic bulk API usage for multiple hosts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts', which could cause confusion, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 like 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts' or 'vibemk_create_cluster_host'. It only mentions that multiple hosts automatically use the bulk API, implying it handles both modes, but doesn't state conditions for preferring a dedicated bulk tool or any exclusions. The oneOf schema hints at modes but doesn't give usage context.

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

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

There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond 'create'. It does not state whether the rule is immediately active, requires activation (e.g., via vibemk_activate_changes), whether it overwrites existing rules, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to inform the agent about the tool's operational impact.

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, one sentence, and front-loads the action ('Create host contact group rule'). It avoids unnecessary verbiage and directly states the primary function. While slightly terse, its brevity is appropriate for a tool whose schema already contains detailed parameter information. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 complexity (nested host_conditions object, optional parameters, and interaction with rulesets), the description alone lacks context about how the rule is stored, whether it is associated with a specific folder, or how conditions are evaluated. However, the schema provides some clarity about host_conditions (e.g., 'empty = all hosts'). The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps, but the combination of description and schema is minimally sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing baseline semantics for 'folder', 'comment', 'contact_groups', and 'host_conditions'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers. However, the schema descriptions are reasonably clear (e.g., 'Conditions to match hosts (optional, empty = all hosts)'), so the description does not need to add much. The nested structure is explained adequately in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: to create a host contact group rule that assigns contact groups to hosts based on conditions. It specifies the exact action (create) and the resource (host contact group rule), and the phrase 'based on conditions' distinguishes it from simpler contact group creation. Among sibling tools, this one is clearly identified by its name and description for assigning contact groups to hosts, unlike vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule for host groups or generic rule creation tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_create_rule, vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule, or vibemk_update_rule. It does not mention scenarios where this is the preferred choice or that it creates a rule in the Checkmk ruleset system. The only implicit hint is the name, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between similar rule-creation tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes a write operation but does not disclose potential side effects, failure conditions (e.g., name conflicts), or permission requirements. The behavior is unsurprising for a create operation, but transparency is limited.

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, using two short phrases that convey the purpose without redundancy. No unnecessary words or details.

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 of the operation and the lack of an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does. No additional context about return values or complex behavior is needed.

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 covers 100% of parameters with simple descriptions ('Group name', 'Display alias'), and the description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully describes the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create host group' / 'Add new host group') and the resource ('host group'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_host_group, delete_host_group, and get_host_groups.

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 implies usage (use to create a host group) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as bulk creation or updating an existing group. The name and context make the purpose clear, but there is no explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the intended outcome but does not disclose side effects such as activation requirements, duplicate handling, or whether existing rules are overwritten.

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 concise sentence with a clear action and purpose. The emoji is decorative but does not harm clarity.

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?

The description gives enough high-level context for a straightforward call, but the nested host_conditions object is under-specified and no output schema or error behavior is mentioned. Agents may need additional examples or details to construct valid conditions.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds high-level context but does not significantly expand on the schema-provided parameter meanings, especially for nested condition structures.

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 action ('Create host group rule') and the purpose ('Assign hosts to host groups based on conditions'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_host_group and create_rule.

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 implies usage when assigning hosts to host groups via a rule, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. No sibling tool is referenced for comparison.

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

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

With no annotations and no description of side effects, the tool provides no insight into whether changes require activation, permissions, or any other operational impact. The fact that it creates something is obvious, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral context.

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, consisting of a short title and a one-line elaboration. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, contains no fluff, and is easy to scan.

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?

The description provides enough to understand the basic operation, and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, it lacks any mention of return values, activation requirements, or validation, which could be relevant in a Checkmk context. Overall adequate but not rich in context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Tag group title', 'List of tags with id and title') and the tool description adds no extra clarification about how the parameters relate or are formatted.

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: 'Create host tag' and elaborates 'Add new host tag group'. This distinguishes it from other create tools like create_host or create_folder, and from tag operations like update or delete.

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?

It is implicitly understood that this tool is for creating new host tag groups, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like update_host_tag or get_host_tags. No guidance is provided on preconditions or separation from similar create tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create password - Store new password securely,' which implies a mutating action but does not disclose potential failures, required fields, idempotency, or side effects. More detail is needed for a write operation.

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, using only a few words to convey the primary purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or the need for required parameters. Given the seven parameters and write operation, the missing operational context leaves the agent under-informed for successful invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves; the schema's generic descriptions like 'Password identifier' and 'Password value' remain the only source of parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action as creating/storing a new password, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling password tools like update_password and delete_password, though it lacks additional context about what the password is used for.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_update_password or vibemk_get_passwords. There is no mention of required versus optional parameters or common use cases, so the agent receives little decision-making help.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that a rule is created but does not mention that changes may require activation, that rulesets must exist, or any failure modes.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is concise and easy to scan.

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 presence of nested objects (rule_config, conditions) and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. An agent would need more context on how to structure rule_config and conditions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions, leaving nested objects like rule_config and conditions largely unexplained.

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 identifies the verb (create) and resource (monitoring rule), but it does not distinguish this generic rule creation from sibling tools like vibemk_create_host_contactgroup_rule or vibemk_create_host_hostgroup_rule.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of the many rule-related sibling tools, nor are any preconditions or alternatives mentioned. The description only restates the action.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or any permission requirements. The description carries the full burden but only states the basic creation action.

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 short but somewhat redundant, repeating 'Create service group' in both the prefix and the main clause. It could be more concise without losing meaning, but it is not overly verbose.

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 simple creation tool, the description is adequate but omits potential relevant context such as uniqueness constraints, relationship to existing groups, or downstream effects. It does not fully prepare the agent for edge cases or alternative actions.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'name' (including format constraints) and 'alias'. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('service group'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'vibemk_bulk_create_service_groups'. The singular phrasing implies a single group, which is sufficient for basic clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibemk_bulk_create_service_groups' or how it relates to update/delete operations. The description only states the action without context on selection criteria.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action. It does not mention side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing time periods with the same name, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected behavior for the agent.

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, using only a short phrase with an emoji prefix. It has no redundant or extraneous information, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose. The structure is clean and straightforward.

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?

The tool is a simple create operation, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the description lacks important context such as required fields (though schema marks two as required), potential uniqueness constraints on the name, or what the tool returns upon success. This is not a complex tool, but the absence of these details leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (name, alias, exclude, exceptions, active_time_ranges), achieving 100% coverage. According to the rubric, this sets a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, so the score remains at the baseline.

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: to create a new time period. It uses the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource 'time period'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_timeperiod and delete_timeperiod, though it doesn't explicitly name them, the action is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes update and delete operations, the description itself does not mention that this is for creating new time periods only, nor does it contrast with existing time period modification tools. Users must infer usage from the name.

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

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

No annotations provided; description is minimal and does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether creation triggers activation, whether it overwrites existing users, or permission requirements). The single verb 'Add' gives no behavioral transparency.

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?

One-line description is concise and free of filler; it is appropriately short for a simple create operation.

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 create tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks necessary context such as what happens after creation (activation required?), error handling, or relationships to other objects. Incomplete.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'user' with 'Add new CheckMK user' - unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like update/delete/get.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_user or delete_user, nor any prerequisites (e.g., existing contact groups or roles). Implied only by 'new'.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only indicates that the tool creates a role by cloning. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and method, with no redundant or extraneous wording.

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?

The description and schema together give enough context for a basic invocation: which role to clone and what ID to assign. It does not specify output behavior, but for a simple create operation this is acceptable.

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 provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for base_role_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the score stays at the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: create a user role by cloning an existing role. It distinguishes this tool from list/show/update/delete role siblings by emphasizing the clone-and-create behavior.

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?

Description implies the tool is for creating a new role from an existing one, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other role-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternative workflows.

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

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

The word 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it modifies any state or requires special permissions. With no annotations, this implicit clue is the only behavioral disclosure.

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, using a single sentence with a clear action and object. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 absence of parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context for a user to understand the tool's basic function. It lacks details about return format or specific analysis, but these are not essential for such a simple tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is effectively complete, warranting the baseline score.

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 an action ('Analyze') and a resource ('available CheckMK API endpoints and their structure'), making its purpose identifiable. However, it does not specify what kind of analysis is performed or what output is expected, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling debug tools (e.g., debug_url_detection, debug_checkmk_connection). The description gives no context for selecting it over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action is a 'test' of connectivity and API access, which implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, required permissions, or whether any state changes occur.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single short sentence with an emoji prefix. It conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant content.

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 simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, though it could mention what kind of result or confirmation is returned to fully set expectations.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe.

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: testing server connectivity and API access for CheckMK. It names a specific resource (CheckMK connection) and a specific action (test), which distinguishes it from generic debug tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling debug tools like debug_url_detection or debug_api_endpoints.

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 the many sibling tools. It only states what it does, without mentioning appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives such as debug_url_detection or get_checkmk_version.

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

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 only states the action and resource but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output format is. For a debug/check tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and efficient, though it could include more contextual detail without losing brevity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It only says 'check permissions' without stating the output format or any expected behavior, leaving the agent without enough information to fully anticipate the result.

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 is trivially complete (100% coverage). Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('automation user permissions for API access'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling debug tools like vibemk_debug_checkmk_connection and vibemk_debug_url_detection by focusing on permissions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other debug tools available. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the specific scenarios that warrant checking permissions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'Shows' results, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or the absence of mutations. This lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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 and well-structured, consisting of a single clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and output, and no additional context is necessary for a user to understand what the tool does.

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, making the input schema empty. According to the rubric, zero parameters yield a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-related information since there is nothing to explain.

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: showing all tested URL patterns and results. It uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource ('tested URL patterns and results'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling debug tools, its focus on URL detection is sufficiently specific.

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. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this debug tool would be preferred over other debug tools like vibemk_debug_api_endpoints.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral impact. It clearly indicates deletion, but does not mention side effects such as removal of group memberships, cascading effects on hosts/services, or whether confirmation is required.

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 very short and easy to parse, but repeats the same idea with 'Delete' and 'Remove'. It is not overly verbose and contains no irrelevant information.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, the description lacks important context such as prerequisites, effects on associated users, or whether the operation is reversible. It is minimal and leaves the agent to infer behavior from the tool name alone.

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 only parameter, 'name', is fully documented in the schema with 'Group name to delete', providing clear semantic meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's role.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('contact group'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_contact_group or create_contact_group, though the phrasing is slightly redundant with 'Delete' and 'Remove'.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_contact_group for modifications or get_contact_groups for inspection. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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

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

Does not disclose any side effects such as whether the deletion is reversible, requires activation, or has restrictions; with no annotations, the description bears the burden and it is somewhat lacking.

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?

One clear sentence with an icon, no unnecessary words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple delete operation; does not mention return values or failure modes, but no 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 parameter downtime_id is already described in the schema as the ID to delete and where to get it; the tool description adds no further semantics.

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?

Clearly states it deletes/cancels a downtime by ID, distinguishing from schedule and list tools.

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?

Implicitly indicates usage: you need an existing downtime ID, likely from list/downtime tools; does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but is understandable.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral detail. It mentions 'options for recursive deletion' but does not explain side effects, such as what happens with non-empty folders when abort_on_nonempty is selected, or whether deletion is permanent or requires activation.

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 brief and direct, though it redundantly says 'Delete folder - Remove folder'. It is still concise and well-structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the operation, but lacks important context such as whether the deletion affects child hosts, whether the action requires activation of changes, or how the delete_mode values behave in practice. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but leaves some gaps.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (folder path and delete_mode). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (delete/remove folder) and mentions the key option for recursive deletion. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as create_folder, update_folder, and move_folder.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or how to decide between the delete modes. The description is purely declarative and does not offer any contextual or conditional advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining that deletion is destructive and likely irreversible. It only says 'Remove host from monitoring' without mentioning permanent deletion, cascading effects, or required permissions.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded; the action and target are immediately clear with no unnecessary wording.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, the description lacks important context such as irreversibility, prerequisites, or impact on related objects. Simple but incomplete for safe usage.

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 only parameter host_name is described in the schema as 'Name of the host,' which fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Delete host') and the resource affected ('Remove host from monitoring'), making it distinct from sibling host-management tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_host, move_host, or scheduling downtime. The description simply states the action without usage context.

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

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

No annotations and no description of side effects, irreversibility, or impact on hosts associated with the group. The description only repeats the action.

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?

Very brief but redundant: 'Delete host group' and 'Remove host group' say the same thing. Could be tightened to a single clear phrase.

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?

Simple operation with one parameter, but lacks important context such as whether deletion is permanent, cascades to hosts, or can fail if the group is in use.

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 covers the single 'name' parameter with a matching description; description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (delete) and resource (host group), distinguishing it from create/update/get host group operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for deleting a host group.

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

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

The description discloses the direct action of removing a host tag group, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether host assignments are affected, or what the 'repair' parameter does.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It clearly communicates the core purpose in a single phrase.

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 destructive operation, the description lacks important context such as consequences, required permissions, and the meaning of the 'repair' parameter. While the schema covers parameter names, the overall guidance is insufficient for safe usage.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, and the 'repair' parameter remains ambiguous.

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 'Delete' and the object 'host tag group', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_host_group or delete_user_group.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_host_tag or get_host_tags. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for deletion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the deletion action without elaborating on consequences such as irreversibility, whether associated data is affected, or any authorization requirements. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 concise line: '🗑️ Delete password - Remove stored password'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. While very brief, it is not over-specified and is easy to parse.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that deletion is permanent, whether any related data is removed, or what the expected response or result is. An agent invoking this tool would have no warning about consequences, making it risky to call without additional context.

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 schema covers the sole parameter 'ident' with the description 'Password identifier to delete', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'password', with a clarifying phrase 'Remove stored password'. This clearly indicates the action and target. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like update_password or create_password, though the name and verb are sufficient for basic differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. The only implicit context is that it is for deleting passwords, but no explicit comparison to related operations (e.g., update_password) is given.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'remove monitoring rule' without noting that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or may require an activation step.

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?

Extremely concise, just two short phrases. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Provides the essential purpose and parameter, but lacks context about side effects, required permissions, or relationship to activation. Given the minimal nature and lack of annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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 only parameter, rule_id, is described in the schema as 'Rule ID to delete', which is clear. The description adds no extra detail but schema coverage is adequate.

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?

Clearly states the action: delete a rule. Distinguishes from sibling rules tools like create_rule, update_rule, and move_rule.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or any preconditions. Does not mention whether deletion requires activation or affects other monitoring objects.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It simply states 'Remove a service group from CheckMK' without mentioning potential cascading effects, reversibility, or confirmation requirements. This lacks transparency for a destructive operation.

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 one concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that deletion is permanent or that it affects only the service group, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 single parameter 'name' is described as 'Service group name to delete', which aligns with the schema and adds slight context. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance beyond 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 action (delete) and the resource (service group) in CheckMK, distinguishing it from other service group operations like create or update. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 (e.g., update service group, bulk delete). It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or situations where deletion is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations and no detail about side effects, irreversibility, or whether deletion requires activation in Checkmk. 'Delete/Remove' signals destruction but nothing more.

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?

Very short and scannable; however, the dash phrase 'Remove time period' is redundant with the first clause.

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?

Does not mention output/return behavior, error cases, or activation implications. For a destructive mutation, more context is needed.

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 single parameter is described with its role ('time period name to delete') and schema coverage is 100%; the description adds no further semantics beyond the name.

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?

Clear verb and object: delete a time period by name. It identifies the delete operation among the sibling time period tools, though it relies on the name rather than explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create/update/get timeperiods, nor any contextual conditions. The description only restates the action.

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

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

The description explicitly states the destructive effect: 'Remove CheckMK user'. Since no annotations are provided, this clarity is valuable, though it does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 no superfluous information. It uses a clear structure: action + resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple delete operation with a single parameter, the description provides sufficient context. It does not mention edge cases like non-existent users or activation steps, but these are not strictly necessary for this tool's basic use.

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 parameter 'username' is already self-explanatory in the schema ('Username to delete'), and the description adds no additional semantic context or format details. It meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 specific action ('Delete user') and the resource ('CheckMK user'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_user or update_user.

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 implies usage for removing a user but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using update_user to disable a user). It also lacks any prerequisites or consequences, though this is less critical given the simple scope.

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

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

There are no annotations to carry safety or side-effect information, so the description bears full responsibility. It states that deletion is limited to custom roles, but does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether roles in use are protected, or what errors might occur.

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 and to the point, using one short sentence to convey both the action and the key limitation. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple delete operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It includes the important built-in-role restriction, though it stops short of describing return values or failure conditions.

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 only parameter, role_id, is fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the custom role to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the schema, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Delete user role') and the target resource ('custom user role'), and explicitly distinguishes it from built-in roles. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_user_role or list_user_roles.

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 a clear usage constraint: only custom user roles can be deleted, not built-in roles. It does not explicitly point to alternatives for listing or creating roles, but the custom-vs-built-in distinction is enough to guide appropriate use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start enhanced service discovery' without explaining whether it is asynchronous, what it returns, whether it modifies state, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that initiates a process.

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 sentence with an emoji, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and does not front-load key information. The brevity is not beneficial because it omits critical context.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain modes, host lists, bulk processing, waiting behavior, or what 'enhanced' means. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this correctly or what to expect.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning; it does not explain modes, bulk sizes, or the full_scan flag beyond what the schema already states. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('services'), and indicates it starts discovery for hosts. However, 'enhanced' is vague and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like start_service_discovery or start_bulk_discovery. The purpose is understood but not sharply defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as vibemk_start_service_discovery and vibemk_start_bulk_discovery exist, but the description does not mention them or any selection criteria. An agent has no basis to choose this over others.

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

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

There are no annotations to indicate read-only behavior, side effects, or rate limits, and the description does not state whether this operation only reads data. Since the full burden falls on the description, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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 unnecessary fluff. The leading emoji is decorative but does not harm clarity, and the structure is concise and to the point.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose but does not mention what output the caller should expect (e.g., a list of rulesets, count, or structured details). Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about the return value would make it more complete.

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, so there is no parameter detail to explain. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 action 'Find' and the resource 'host grouping rulesets', and explains the purpose as discovering available rulesets for host group and contact group assignment. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic ruleset operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search/list ruleset tools.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_rulesets, search_rulesets, or list_rulesets. The intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the filtering criteria (active and suppressing alerts) but does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only get operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose with a visual marker. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly defines what constitutes 'active' and the alert suppression aspect, which is the key differentiator among sibling downtime tools.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (host_name), and the schema already describes it as 'Optional: Filter active downtimes for specific host'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('active downtimes'), and a clear scope ('only currently active downtimes that are suppressing alerts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vibemk_get_downtimes and vibemk_list_downtimes by the 'active' and 'suppressing alerts' qualifiers.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need currently active downtimes that are suppressing alerts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the use case without confusion.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows progress', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or describe the nature of the returned data (e.g., fields like status, progress percentage). It also doesn't mention polling behavior or potential delays. The description is not contradictory but lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. The emoji adds visual emphasis without harming clarity. However, the two parts ('Get bulk discovery status' and 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job') are nearly redundant, with the second only slightly refining the first. It's efficient but slightly repetitive, so not a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives enough to know its basic purpose but leaves out what the response structure looks like and any confirmation that it is read-only. For a status-check tool, this is adequate but not fully complete—an agent might need to know if it returns a single progress value or a more detailed job object.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with description 'Bulk discovery job ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already gives, such as how to obtain the job_id or its expected format. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('bulk discovery status'), and adds 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job' which specifies what the status represents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibemk_get_discovery_status (likely for single discovery) and vibemk_get_discovery_background_job by the explicit 'bulk' qualifier. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies it is for bulk discovery jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_get_discovery_status or vibemk_wait_for_discovery. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a job_id from vibemk_start_bulk_discovery).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive read ('List', 'Show') but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, whether it returns a summary or full objects, or what happens without a folder filter. Minimal value added beyond the basic intent.

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?

A single concise sentence with the core intent front-loaded. The emoji adds no information but the structure is efficient and every part earns its place. Nothing wasted.

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?

A low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for the core intent. It doesn't explain what the response contains or how folder filtering affects results, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor gap given the schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (folder, effective_attributes) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions folder filtering, which reinforces but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List hosts' / 'Show all monitored hosts'. The scope is explicit ('all monitored hosts') and the optional folder filtering is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_folder_hosts, get_host_details, or get_host_config, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many host-related siblings (get_host_details, get_host_status, get_folder_hosts, get_host_config). The usage is implied as a general host listing but no exclusions or alternatives are named. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'List services'. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or return behavior. Since the description carries the full burden without annotations, this minimal information about safety and expected behavior 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, succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key parameter constraint without any fluff. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 simple list operation with one optional filter, the description provides enough context to know what the tool does. It does not describe the output format, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is not a critical gap. The tool name further clarifies the intent.

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 schema already describes host_name as 'Filter by host name'. The description adds the word 'optional', clarifying that the parameter is not required. This is a small addition; the core semantics are already covered by the schema, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 action (List) and the resource (services), and mentions the optional host filtering. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_status or get_host_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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other list or service-related tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations and no explicit statement about side effects or permissions, some ambiguity remains about what 'system details' entails.

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 unnecessary words or repetition.

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, read-only informational call, the description is largely sufficient. The phrase 'system details' is slightly vague but does not prevent correct invocation.

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 no parameters, so the baseline applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed or possible.

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 retrieves the Checkmk version and system details, which is a specific read-only purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like connection debuggers, though 'system details' is somewhat broad.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call it. The description only states what it does.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List comments' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or any filtering logic. The lack of explicit transparency is a gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the action 'List comments'. The second part 'Show host/service comments' is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It is concise overall, though a slightly tighter phrasing would improve structure.

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 simple list operation with two optional filters, the description provides enough context to understand the basic purpose. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by host name', 'Filter by service'). The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond restating the scope. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not elevate it.

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 lists comments and implies the scope (host/service). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'add_comment' tool, but does not explicitly mention the read-only nature or what types of comments are included beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for reading comments, nor does it reference the related 'add_comment' or other retrieval tools. The user is left to infer usage solely from the action verb.

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

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

No annotations; description implies read-only via 'list/show' but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or lack thereof.

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?

Very brief, but redundant phrasing 'List contact groups - Show contact groups' slightly wastes space.

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?

Minimal description does not mention return format, filtering, or sorting; adequate for a simple list but lacks detail.

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?

No parameters, so description does not need to explain them; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (list) and resource (contact groups), and distinguishes from create/update/delete siblings.

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?

Implicitly for listing contact groups, but no explicit contrast with create/update/delete or when to choose this over others.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or how problems are defined beyond 'current problems'.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and the optional filter is covered by the schema.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read-only query, but it lacks usage context, output expectations, and differentiation from similar status/problem-related tools. It is not severely incomplete, but an agent would benefit from more detail about the returned data and when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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 only parameter host_name is adequately described in the schema as 'Filter by host name'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is complete for the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves current problems for all hosts and services, and the optional host_name filter is self-explanatory. It is distinguishable from general status tools like get_host_status by focusing on problems, though it could be more explicit about whether acknowledged/downtime problems are included.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_host_status, get_service_status, get_comments, or get_downtimes. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'retrieve', implying read-only but not explicitly stating it, nor disclosing return format, side effects, or limitations. The minimal wording fails to provide behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. However, it includes slight redundancy ('Get custom graph' vs 'Retrieve predefined custom graph data') and lacks depth, though for a simple tool it is appropriately brief.

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?

The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what a custom graph is, what data it returns, or how it fits into the broader monitoring workflow. With no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (reduce, time_range, custom_graph_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or relationships, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond 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 tool retrieves a predefined custom graph, using specific verbs ('Get', 'Retrieve') and a specific resource ('custom graph'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only graph-specific tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use for displaying pre-configured graphs' or contrast with metric tools such as get_host_metrics.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free. It says 'Show' but does not disclose whether it polls, triggers anything, or requires certain permissions.

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 and front-loaded, using a single sentence and an emoji. It contains no fluffy or redundant information, fitting the simple one-parameter operation.

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?

The description lacks context about the discovery workflow, such as what the returned job status looks like, whether it is the latest job or a specific job ID, or how it relates to other discovery tools. The lack of an output schema and any explanation of return values leaves significant ambiguity.

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 only parameter, host_name, is described with a clear purpose ('Host name to check background job status'). However, no additional details are given about expected format, case sensitivity, or validation, so it only minimally exceeds 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 indicates the tool is for retrieving discovery job status for a host, distinguishing it from other discovery-related tools that start or wait for discovery. The verb 'Get' and resource 'discovery background job' are specific, though 'last' adds some ambiguity.

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 the many similar discovery-related siblings (e.g., get_discovery_status, start_service_discovery, wait_for_discovery). It does not mention whether this returns historical or current status, nor any prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' and 'Show', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or clarify whether it returns results from a background job, pending changes, or the current state of discovered services. This ambiguity is significant given the many discovery-related siblings.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The emoji adds a minor visual cue without clutter. It is concise and easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool that has several closely related siblings. It does not explain what 'discovery status' means, whether it refers to a background job or the latest discovery results, or what the output will look like. Since there is no output schema, this lack of context could lead to incorrect usage.

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 already fully documents host_name with a clear description ('Host name to check discovery status'). The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, only restating 'for a host'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get discovery status) and the resource (a host), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_service_discovery and get_bulk_discovery_status by focusing on current results for a single host. However, it could be more explicit about being non-bulk or what 'discovery status' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many discovery-related siblings (e.g., start_service_discovery, get_bulk_discovery_status, wait_for_discovery). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation through 'List' and 'Show', but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details. With no annotations to supplement, transparency is limited.

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, using only a few words to convey the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information or verbosity.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is functionally adequate. Missing details like output format or default behavior, but not critical for basic use.

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 single parameter host_name is described as 'Filter by host name', which is clear and matches the schema. The description adds no extra detail but the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 lists downtimes and shows scheduled downtimes, identifying the resource and action. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_downtimes or get_active_downtimes, so it's slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other downtime-related tools (e.g., get_active_downtimes, schedule_downtime). The description lacks any explicit or implicit direction for choosing among alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get example' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made to Checkmk or that it only returns illustrative JSON.

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 very concise, with no filler or redundant content. Both phrases add value: one names the operation and the other specifies the output.

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 low complexity, empty schema, and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates that the tool returns example JSON structures for host grouping rules. It could add a bit more detail about the shape or scope of the examples, but none is essential.

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 zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: example JSON structures for host grouping rules. This distinguishes it from actual rule retrieval tools like get_ruleset or find_host_grouping_rulesets.

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 implies use when example JSON structures are needed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_rulesets or find_host_grouping_rulesets, nor does it mention that this is only for reference before creating rules.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention error cases, permissions, folder existence, or whether any side effects occur.

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 and front-loaded: a clear verb and object in a single sentence with no unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It does not describe the return format or edge cases, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter 'folder' is described as 'Folder path', which matches the tool description. However, no additional format details, examples, or defaults are provided beyond 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 action ('List') and the resource ('all hosts in a specific folder'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_folders or get_checkmk_hosts.

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 implies usage when hosts inside a particular folder are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that parent filtering is optional and that the tool shows folder structure, but it does not state what the return format is, whether the structure is recursive, whether it is paginated, or what 'optional parent filtering' means in terms of default behavior (root level). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single efficient sentence with an emoji, front-loading the verb and resource, and packing the optional-filtering constraint into the same clause. Zero wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the return value unspecified. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description could reasonably state what is returned (folder list, hierarchy depth), which it does not. Adequate but with a noticeable 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 description coverage is 100% and the parent parameter already has a clear description ('Parent folder path to filter'). The tool description mentions parent filtering, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), and notes optional parent filtering. It clearly distinguishes from sibling folder tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and update_folder, which are all mutation operations rather than read-only listing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling get_folder_hosts that could be conflated with folder listing, and no mention of when to use this vs. drilling into a folder's hosts. The description implies a read-only structure-browsing use case but provides no explicit exclusions.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, permissions required, or what the response contains. It only says 'Show host configuration,' which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 short and to the point, consisting of two phrases. It is efficient, though the 'Get' and 'Show' words are somewhat redundant. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 large number of sibling tools, this description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'host configuration' entails, how it differs from similar host-related tools, or any additional context needed for correct usage.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'host_name' with a clear definition. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but since schema coverage is high (100%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'/'Show') and the resource ('host configuration'), making the purpose clear. However, it is slightly redundant and does not specify what 'attributes' means, which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar host-related tools like get_host_details, get_host_status, or get_host_effective_attributes. The user is left to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes will be made. There is no mention of error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency, so the agent lacks full transparency.

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 short sentence that is not verbose and gets to the point quickly. It lacks any structured breakdown, but for such a simple tool, the conciseness is commendable. It could add more detail without becoming bloated.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain what 'comprehensive' includes, nor does it mention the expected output or any related concepts. Given the simple interface (one parameter), it is somewhat complete, but it leaves significant ambiguity relative to sibling tools that have more specific scopes.

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 schema describes host_name as 'Name of the host', which is basic but covers 100% of the parameter. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format, whether it's case-sensitive, or how to obtain the name. Since coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves comprehensive host information, but 'comprehensive' is vague and does not specify what fields or data are included. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_host_status or get_host_config, leaving scope ambiguous.

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 the many sibling tools with overlapping purpose. No conditions, use cases, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Show', and discloses the behavior of including inherited values, but does not describe side effects, return format, or error behavior.

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 and front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler. It states the purpose in a single clear sentence.

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 simple read operation on a single parameter, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose. It does not detail the output structure, but that is not critical for invoking a host attribute retrieval.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter host_name as 'Name of the host', so coverage is high. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves effective host attributes, including inherited values, which distinguishes it from plain host configuration retrieval. The verb 'Get' and resource 'host attributes' are specific.

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 implies usage for viewing effective host attributes with inherited values, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative host-related tools such as get_host_config or get_host_details. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations on side effects or read-only behavior, the description carries the full burden. 'List/Show all' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe return behavior or error conditions.

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 very short and mostly focused, but 'List host groups' and 'Show all host groups' are slightly redundant. Still, it contains no unnecessary fluff beyond the emoji and the duplicated idea.

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 trivial parameter-less list tool, the description is minimally sufficient, stating the resource and action. However, it does not mention the return format or any limits/filtering, so an agent gets only the basic intent.

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 no parameters, so there is no input schema to document. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed.

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 'List' and resource 'host groups', and with the tool name it is unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_service_groups or create_host_group.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_service_groups or other host-related list operations. It does not mention that it is a read-only listing or when it would be preferred.

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

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get', 'Extract') with no side effects, which is transparent given the absence of annotations. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' but the verb implies it clearly.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single line with no redundant text. It fully conveys the essence without extra words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation but does not specify the output format or any edge cases. Given there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the returned data structure.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), and the tool description adds minimal additional semantic value. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (get host metrics, extract performance data) and specifies the resource (host metrics) distinguishing it from service-level metrics. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like service metrics or metric search. It lacks any conditional context or decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show current monitoring status' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify what the response contains, whether it reflects live data, or how errors for unknown hosts are handled. Minimal information beyond the name itself.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, it is so brief that it may be under-specifying for the agent's needs, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 (one parameter) but the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., up/down, metrics, problems) and how it differs from similar tools. This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about expected results and differentiation from siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.