Nagios Program Status Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior: it detects wedged daemons where the CGI returns 200 with stale data, globally disabled notifications, and disabled check execution, and it raises on connection failure so a dead Nagios cannot be read as healthy. This is exactly the operational context the annotation cannot supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the routing distinction, then the specific failure modes it catches. Every sentence carries information; nothing is restated or padded.

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, return values need no explanation in prose, and the description covers the remaining burden: what it detects, how failure surfaces (raises on connection failure), and how it differs from the sibling. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single parameter (max_staleness_seconds) is fully documented in the schema, including its default and the ~10s refresh rationale. The description's mention of stale status data is thematic rather than additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 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 and resource (check whether the Nagios daemon is alive and working) and explicitly carves out the scope: it verifies the monitoring system, not outages. It contrasts directly with the sibling nagios_current_problems_tool, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('watchdog asking is Nagios still able to tell me about problems?') and when-not ('NOT to find outages'), and names the alternative tool plus the exact failure mode that makes the alternative misleading. Routing is fully determined.

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