get-downtimes

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('List') and states what information is returned. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The scope is clear but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Three succinct sentences: first states purpose, second lists use cases, third describes output and importance. No redundancy, well front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and typical use. It could mention default behavior (e.g., whether it returns all downtimes or future only) but parameters clarify options. Overall complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%; all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the output (scope, schedule, duration) but does not link parameters to those aspects. 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists scheduled maintenance downtimes in Datadog. It provides specific use cases like checking active downtimes or understanding muted monitors, and mentions what information is shown (scope, schedule, duration). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_downtime_schedules.

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 lists when to use the tool: for questions like 'are there any active downtimes' or 'why is this monitor muted'. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives among siblings.

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