vibemk_get_downtimes

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.