thruk_totals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the result size (16 fields) and compares verbosity, but does not disclose read-only nature, security requirements, or any side effects. Safe read behavior is implied but 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 sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes a meaningful comparison. No extraneous words, perfectly concise.

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 complex filter schema and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'totals' include (e.g., counts of states, problems), leaving the agent to guess the return structure. More detail is needed.

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%, with both parameters (filter and backends) well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional insight into parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Compact host+service totals' and explicitly distinguishes from thruk_stats by noting '16 fields versus ~100', making the tool's specific purpose and differentiation obvious.

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 clear context by contrasting with thruk_stats, implying use for compact totals over detailed stats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond thruk_stats.

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