vibemk_list_downtimes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and falls short.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words or complexity. The emoji and dash add visual structure without detracting from clarity.

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 provides the basic function but lacks important context: there is no output schema to indicate what fields will be returned, and no information about how this tool relates to other downtime tools (e.g., 'vibemk_get_downtimes', 'vibemk_delete_downtime'). The description is adequate for a simple listing but leaves the agent without full operational context.

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 provides clear descriptions for all three parameters: host_name filter, active_only boolean with default, and service_description filter. The tool description's mention of 'filtering options' aligns with these. The parameter meanings are well-explained directly in the schema.

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 'List' and the resource 'scheduled downtimes', making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly-named sibling tool 'vibemk_get_downtimes', which could lead to confusion about which to use.

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 mentions 'filtering options' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'vibemk_get_downtimes' or 'vibemk_get_active_downtimes'. There is no explanation of use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to other downtime-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.