noc_rollup

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and includes [READ] to signal non-mutating behavior and 'one-shot' to indicate a single call returns the summary. It also discloses what data is included (down/warning counts and top-3 CPU nodes), but does not address auth, rate limits, or exact output formatting.

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?

Every line earns its place: the first line front-loads the read behavior, purpose, and output scope; the Args section directly covers the sole parameter. No filler or redundant 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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary output summary and parameter guidance. It is slightly light on what 'worst CPU nodes' means and possible return structure, but these are not blocking for invocation.

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 only parameter, target, is explained in the description as a SolarWinds target name from config with an explicit 'omit for the default' behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description states a concrete read action ('[READ] One-shot NOC glance') and specifies the exact content returned: down/warning counts and top-3 worst CPU nodes. It is distinct from siblings by combining summary counts with a top-node list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

'One-shot NOC glance' clearly frames the intended use: a quick overall status snapshot rather than detailed per-device investigation. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is given, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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