Host Downtimes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional caveats about behavior such as result ordering, pagination, or response shape. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by two directly actionable usage tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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, combined with full schema documentation, output schema, and read-only annotations, gives an agent everything needed to safely and correctly invoke the tool. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing for a read-only list operation.

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%, but the description adds practical semantics: it explains the effect of an empty hostname and clarifies the meaning of only_active as 'running right now' rather than simply restating the schema. This aids an agent in choosing the correct parameter values.

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 ('list') and resource ('host downtimes'), and clarifies it covers both scheduled and running downtimes. The tool name and description together make it distinct from sibling tools like list_service_downtimes and list_host_acknowledgements.

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 actionable guidance: leave hostname empty for all hosts, and use only_active=True to get only current downtimes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the parameter-level usage instructions are strong and contextually sufficient.

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