Find Downtimes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it filters out cancelled and expired downtimes, and the 'running_only' parameter semantics are clarified by the description's example phrasing. It does not detail pagination or exact return shape, but the output schema exists and the added filtering behavior is valuable.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and exclusions; the second provides concrete example queries. Every word earns its place, and the most important scoping 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?

For a read-only query tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (running and planned downtimes), what is excluded, and how to filter. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention the 'limit' parameter's behavior across kinds, but the schema already documents that.

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 six parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the overall filtering intent (e.g., 'by host, service or comment') and by giving a real-world example ('is web01 in maintenance') that maps to the host and running_only parameters. This goes slightly beyond the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('running and planned downtimes of hosts and services'), and explicitly scopes what is excluded ('Cancelled and expired ones are left out'). It also provides concrete example queries ('is web01 in maintenance', 'what is planned for tonight'), which clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_hosts or find_services.

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 clear context for when to use the tool via example use cases, and the exclusion of cancelled/expired downtimes implies when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the examples and scope are sufficient for an agent to select it correctly among siblings.

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