Service State Changes

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: results are filtered to state-change entries and indicate breakage/flapping. No contradictions or hidden side effects are suggested.

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 short sentences, both informative and front-loaded. The result filtering is stated first, and the behavioral implications load second, with no filler or repetition of the tool name and title.

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 list tool with a full input schema, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It adds the key domain semantics that the schema cannot express while leaving structured detail to the schema.

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 parameters like hours, limit, hostname, and servicename are fully documented. The description adds little parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the baseline is 3 when the schema carries that burden.

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 names a specific resource (service state changes) and clearly restricts results to entries where the state actually changed, with semantics like 'when it broke' and 'whether it is flapping.' It is distinguishable from general log listing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_host_state_changes beyond the word 'service.'

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 implies when the tool is relevant: investigating service state transitions, outages, and flapping. The schema adds useful guidance about requiring an exact hostname/service and obtaining names from sibling tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a stated alternative, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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