nagios_host_status_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive query and 'current' suggests a live snapshot, but the description does not clarify potential error conditions, required permissions, or whether the status is cached or freshly queried.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates what the tool does.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only query tool with an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It could explain how host status is determined or what happens for unknown hosts, but the minimal scope keeps the definition reasonably complete.

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 describes host_name as 'The Nagios hostname to query' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('a Nagios host'), and the specific kind of information ('current status'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings that target services or perform actions like acknowledging or adding comments.

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 implies the tool is for host-level status queries, which separates it from service status and other action-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over nagios_service_status_tool or when it should not be used.

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