Service Acknowledgements

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by specifying the content of the history (who, when, comment) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as ordering, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 concise sentences, returns the core purpose and scope upfront, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Combined with a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It states the required per-service scope, the absence of an estate-wide variant, and what the history contains, which is sufficient for a filtered read-only list tool.

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%, and the input schema already clearly documents all three parameters, including required hostname and servicename, the limit defaults/maximum, and where to obtain valid names. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Acknowledgement history for one service') and immediately specifies the kind of data returned ('who acknowledged a problem, when, and with what comment'). It also differentiates from the sibling list_host_acknowledgements by adding 'Per service only - openITCOCKPIT exposes no estate-wide acknowledgement 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 clearly delimits usage by saying the tool is per-service only and that no estate-wide acknowledgement list exists. It does not explicitly name the alternative list_host_acknowledgements or other siblings, but the schema parameter descriptions further direct the agent to obtain identifiers from list_services_by_state, list_log_entries, get_container_tree, and get_host_info.

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