device_uplinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the [READ] tag, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope (org-wide, WAN interfaces) but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or failure behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and a single tight purpose sentence, followed by a brief Args block. The Args section partially duplicates the schema, but it is small and each line adds default-behavior meaning rather than restating types.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (uplink/WAN statuses) and how to scope it (org_id, target). Nothing critical is missing, though return format and pagination are unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters (org_id, target) are explained, including the non-obvious 'omit to use the default' fallback behavior that the bare anyOf/null schema does not convey. This is a solid lift over what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads appliance/gateway uplink (WAN interface) statuses, scoped across the org. The [READ] tag reinforces the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like network_traffic, device_status, or uplink_loss_and_latency_rca, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are offered. The description never says when to reach for this versus uplink_loss_and_latency_rca or device_status, both of which concern device/uplink health. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement alone.

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