Nagios Current Problems Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the per-problem fields returned (state, duration, attempt count, acknowledgement, plugin output) and the explicit note that it may return confirmation everything is OK instead. It does not mention limits, counts, or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the return shape is contained in a short, clearly-labeled block.

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?

A parameterless read tool with an output schema needs only to say what it selects and roughly what comes back, and the description does both. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which would be noise here.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("all hosts and services currently in a non-OK state"), with a scope qualifier that separates it from the status siblings that report full state. It does not, however, name any sibling or explicitly contrast itself with nagios_host_status_tool or nagios_program_status_tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the "currently in a non-OK state" scope suggests triage/alerting use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool. With nine siblings in the namespace, an agent gets no routing help.

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