Explain Notification

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by enumerating what Naemon checks — disabled, downtime, soft state, host down, state not subscribed, acknowledged, no contact — and clarifying that recent sent notifications are included. It describes the tool's internal evaluation behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core behavior and the detailed reason list, and the second provides concrete usage examples. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, the 100%-covered schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's diagnostic purpose, the types of conclusions it can provide, and example use cases. Nothing essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds only indirect value by signaling that the tool can address both host-level and service-level notification questions via the example queries, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb phrase, 'explain why a host or service did or did not notify,' and names the exact resource and diagnostic scope: settings, contacts, state checks, and recent notifications. It further grounds the purpose with concrete example questions, making it unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools in the list.

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 gives explicit user-facing scenarios: 'why did I get no alert for web01' and 'who gets notified for Backup on db01.' This clearly communicates when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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