vibemk_get_active_downtimes

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.