nagios_notification_history_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'recent notification history' defines a temporal scope. It does not describe sorting or pagination, but the presence of an output schema partly covers what an agent would need about the result shape.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the resource with no wasted wording, filler, or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval with two optional and fully documented parameters plus an output schema, the description is almost sufficient. The only real gap is explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage: hours has a meaningful description and default, and host_name is explicitly explained. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: retrieve notification history from Nagios. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that report host/service status or current problems, and from the modifying tools in the sibling list.

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 intended use case is implied by the name and resource ('history'), but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any 'not for this' examples. An agent can infer the use case, but it is not stated directly.

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