Nagios Downtime History Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read; the description adds the useful detail that results come from parsing nagios.log rather than live state. It does not disclose log rotation/retention limits, whether cancelled or expired windows are included, or result ordering — all relevant for a log-scanning tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and data source are in the first clause. It is perhaps too terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented, so the description need not cover return values or parameter formats. What remains unstated — retention window of nagios.log and how this differs from the live-downtime sibling — is a modest gap rather than a blocker to correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the hours range (1–744, default 168) and host_name filter are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is adequate but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List past and current downtime windows') and adds the data source ('read from nagios.log'), which implies a historical view rather than the live view a sibling like nagios_list_downtimes_tool likely gives. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the distinction is inferable but not stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (nagios_list_downtimes_tool) or of nagios_schedule_downtime_tool/nagios_cancel_downtime_tool. An agent must infer from the phrase 'past and current' that this is the retrospective query.

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