thruk_problems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('List') and discloses the default scope (unhandled, not acknowledged, not in downtime). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral details.

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. It conveys the essential information without any wasted words.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination (limit/offset), filtering, column selection, or backend specification. For a list tool, an agent would need such context to use it effectively.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters, but the description adds no meaning to any parameter. Parameters like 'filter', 'columns', and 'offset' are documented only in the schema. The description does not explain how to use them or relate them to the tool's purpose.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all current unhandled host/service problems'), and explicitly defines 'unhandled' as 'not acknowledged, not in downtime'. This distinguishes it from similar tools like thruk_oldest_problems or thruk_problem_counts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., thruk_oldest_problems, thruk_problem_counts) with overlapping purposes, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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