list_acknowledgements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the key behavior of returning only active acknowledgements and includes useful details about the return content (who/what/when). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but this is a simple list operation and the 'active' filter is the main behavioral nuance.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates purpose and key details efficiently.

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 list tool with optional params and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and result scope. Slight gap: it does not explicitly state that only active acknowledgements are returned and no history, but 'active' is embedded in the description.

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% (page, limit, host_name all described). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'active acknowledgements', and the meaningful details 'who acknowledged what and when'. It fully distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_downtimes and list_events by specifying the unique subject matter.

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 clearly implies use when you need to view active acknowledgements in Centreon. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names; it is more specific than just saying 'list acknowledgements'.

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