vsz_get_system_summary

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it tries /system/systemSummary first and falls back to /system/inventory. This is valuable context beyond what annotations or schema provide, since no annotations are present. It also clarifies the output composition (AP count, client count, zone statistics), adding transparency.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a useful implementation note and parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, fallback behavior, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly mention return format, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, which is a minor gap for selecting the right 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?

The input schema only lists 'host' with a title and type, lacking any descriptive text. The description compensates by explicitly stating 'host: vSZ controller IP or hostname', giving the parameter clear meaning. This adds value 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a system summary with AP count, client count, and zone statistics. The verb 'Get' clearly identifies the action, and the resource 'system summary' is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_system_info and vsz_get_system_inventory by specifying the summarized content.

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 usage for retrieving a high-level system overview, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The fallback behavior offers some context but no direct guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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