list_downtimes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden. It honestly describes the return structure including fields like id, http_code, started_at, ended_at, and pagination meta, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or potential errors. For a read-only listing operation, this is adequate but not explicit about being non-destructive.

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?

Two concise sentences; the first states the primary function, the second summarizes the return payload. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core function, the required monitor scope, and the output shape including pagination. While it doesn't discuss usage alternatives or error conditions, the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this sufficient. It could be more complete with a note on default pagination or time range, but given the output schema, it's not necessary.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that downtimes are for a specific monitor (which maps to monitor_id). Baseline 3 applies.

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 'List downtimes for a specific uptime monitor' - a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_uptime_monitors (which lists monitors) and get_uptime_report (which provides a report), by focusing on downtime events for a single monitor.

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?

It implies when to use: when needing downtime records for a particular monitor, as opposed to list_uptime_monitors that lists monitors themselves. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it's clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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