thruk_service_availability

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states what the tool computes without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, performance implications, or required permissions. For a compute-heavy tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that concisely captures the core functionality and its main configurable aspect (time window). It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 lacks context on the return format, calculation details, or how parameters like `with_downtimes` affect results. It is too brief to be fully informative.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, achieving baseline adequacy.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the resource 'availability for a service' with output type 'uptime / SLA %' and configurable time window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thruk_host_availability or thruk_hostgroup_availability which operate on different resource types.

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 service-level availability computations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., host or hostgroup availability) or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or limitations is given.

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