vibemk_get_example_rule_structures

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.