thruk_state_at

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It hints at read-only behavior ('reconstruct from logs') but does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, or mention performance, data freshness, authentication, or limitations of log-based reconstruction.

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 with no wasted words. Key elements verb, resource, source, and temporal aspect are front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief for a complex tool with 4 parameters (including a nested filter tree). It does not describe return format, result size, dependencies (e.g., log retention), or performance considerations. Significant gaps remain.

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 explain parameters further. Baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 'Reconstruct' and the resource 'parc state', with a specific temporal scope ('past instant') and data source ('/logs'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from state-diff or list tools among siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions that make it appropriate (e.g., need for historical snapshots) or inappropriate (e.g., if live data is needed). No reference to sibling tools like thruk_state_diff or thruk_list_hosts.

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