nagios_program_status_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: detects a wedged daemon (CGI returns 200 but stale status data), globally disabled notifications, disabled check execution, and raises on connection failure so a dead Nagios cannot be read as healthy. This goes well beyond a simple 'check status' statement.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, then behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the contrast with the sibling tool is concise and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it detects, and how it behaves on failure. The output schema handles return values, so no further description is needed.

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 schema already documents the parameter. The description adds context by explaining the default (60) and the refresh rate (~10s), which helps the agent reason about appropriate values. It doesn't need to do much more since there is only one parameter and it is fully described.

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 states a specific verb ('Check whether the Nagios daemon itself is alive and actually working') and resource (the Nagios daemon), and explicitly distinguishes it from nagios_current_problems_tool. It clearly identifies what the tool is for: verifying the monitoring system, not finding outages.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('a watchdog asking is Nagios still able to tell me about problems?') and contrasts it with nagios_current_problems_tool, explaining why that alternative is not suitable (returns 'no problems' both when all is well and when Nagios has silently stopped working). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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