Nagios List Downtimes Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add scope context. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact — past downtime is excluded — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether cancelled downtimes appear, which matters for a list 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the temporal scoping that distinguishes the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the sole optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. What remains missing is minor: relationship to the schedule/cancel/history downtime siblings.

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 single optional host_name parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Filter to a specific host. Omit for all hosts.'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (scheduled downtime) with a clear qualifying scope ('in effect or still to come'). The temporal qualifier implicitly separates it from nagios_downtime_history_tool, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the temporal scope — an agent can infer this is for current/future downtime rather than history. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance and no mention of prerequisites or the related schedule/cancel downtime tools.

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