thruk_host_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only computation with no side effects, but does not explicitly state this or disclose any other behaviors (e.g., data sources, performance impact, output structure).

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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core verbs and key options. Every word carries meaning, with no wasted text.

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 7 parameters, medium complexity, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but lacks details about return values (e.g., percentage, time series) and does not explain the full context needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the high-level notion of a 'configurable time window', providing marginal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool computes host availability (uptime/SLA%) over a configurable time window. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Compute availability' for a 'host') and distinguishes from siblings like thruk_service_availability and thruk_hostgroup_availability.

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 implies usage for host availability queries but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., thruk_service_availability for services, thruk_hostgroup_availability for groups). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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