vibemk_reschedule_check

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It only states that it forces immediate execution, but it does not mention any potential impacts (e.g., overriding scheduled checks, resource usage) or required permissions.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no redundant or irrelevant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 minimal but sufficient for a simple tool. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but there is no output schema to complete. However, it lacks context on how the check is actually performed or what the expected outcome is beyond 'immediate execution'.

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 schema provides basic descriptions for each parameter ('Host name', 'Type: host or service', 'Service (for service checks)'), but the description adds no additional nuance. The check_type parameter is only vaguely described, and the relationship between host and service is not fully clarified. However, since the schema covers all parameters, the 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?

The description 'Force immediate check execution' clearly states the tool's purpose with an actionable verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other tools like scheduling downtimes or acknowledging problems, so an agent can quickly understand what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisite conditions, such as whether the host or service must be in a certain state, or when a reschedule is preferred over other actions like discovery.

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