thruk_recheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'immediate (re)check' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the impact of the 'forced' parameter. The tool likely performs a write operation, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it could be restructured to include key parameter context without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks information on return values, expected behavior for different parameter combinations, and how it fits among many sibling tools. An agent would need supplementary knowledge to use it correctly.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 50% (only 'backends' has a description). The description does not explain 'forced', 'host', or 'service' parameters. The phrase 'host or service' hints at the 'service' parameter but does not clarify its optionality or default.

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 'Schedule' and the resource 'immediate (re)check for a host or service.' It provides a specific action but does not differentiate it explicitly from sibling tools like thruk_schedule_downtime, though the action is distinct.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, caveats, or comparison to sibling tools. For example, it does not clarify that this is for immediate rechecking rather than scheduling downtime.

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