nagios_schedule_check_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey an important trait: this is a scheduling action, not a synchronous check, and it is 'forced' and 'immediate'. However, it does not mention side effects, whether an existing check is replaced, or what happens after scheduling, leaving some behavior unstated.

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 concise sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the key verb 'Schedule' and then the resource. Nothing unnecessary and no redundant repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema and full schema coverage, the description gives sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to use it among siblings, but the schema and output schema cover most operational needs.

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% for both parameters: 'host_name' is described as the hostname to check, and 'service_description' as the service name with an explicit note to omit it for host checks. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('a forced immediate re-check of a host or service'), making the tool's core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from the sibling status, history, and comment tools, which are all different operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, nor any exclusions or mention of sibling alternatives. The description states what the tool does but not the circumstances under which it should be preferred over a status check, acknowledgment, or comment tool.

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