vibemk_get_current_problems

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.