vibemk_check_host_downtime_status

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.