nagios_service_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the current status' states the action but not the behavior behind it — for example, whether the result is a cached/last-known state or how it relates to a fresh check (which nagios_schedule_check_tool exists for). The description does not contradict any annotations, but it also discloses nothing beyond the name itself.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource are presented first and the sentence is tightly scoped. It is not bloated, though it is so minimal that it skips valuable routing context that other dimensions penalize.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nesting, an output schema present), so the schema and output structure cover the mechanics of a call. What is missing is specifically the selection context: with six sibling tools spanning hosts, services, problems, acknowledgements, scheduling, and history, the one-line description is not enough on its own to guarantee correct tool choice.

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%, with both host_name and service_description documented — including a concrete example ('HTTPS crunchtools.com') for service_description. The description's prose adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline, the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 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 combines a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current status of a specific service on a host'), and implicitly differentiates from the sibling nagios_host_status_tool by focusing on service-level rather than host-level state. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state what the tool is not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nagios_host_status_tool, nagios_current_problems_tool, or nagios_schedule_check_tool. There are six siblings with overlapping Nagios domains, and the description gives the agent no rule for choosing among them, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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