thruk_hostgroup_availability

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It states only the purpose, with no disclosure of side effects, read-only nature, permissions, performance impact, or data volume considerations. Completely inadequate for behavioral transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with key information. However, could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separate lines) to improve readability.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return format or differentiate between 'hosts' vs 'services' output. Many sibling tools exist, but no contextual hints are provided.

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 itself provides clear parameter definitions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not helpful. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'compute', resource 'availability', and scope 'for all hosts/services in a hostgroup'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like thruk_host_availability (single host) and thruk_hostgroup_availability_summary (aggregate).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thruk_host_availability, thruk_service_availability, or thruk_hostgroup_availability_summary. Missing context about when to choose this tool over siblings.

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