noc_rollup

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does meaningfully: it explains that unqueryable counts come back as null with the reason in countErrors, and warns against reporting a null as '0 down'. That is genuine return-semantics context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits, latency, or auth requirements.

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?

Extremely tight: a bracketed read marker, one sentence on what it returns, one sentence on the null/countErrors pitfall, and a one-line arg note. The most important operational detail (never report null as zero) is included without padding.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by sketching the return shape (counts, top-3 nodes, countErrors) and an edge-case convention. Combined with readOnlyHint, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this correctly; only the exact field names/structure remain 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 coverage is 0% — the single 'target' property has no description of its own — so the description must compensate, and it does: 'SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default' explains both meaning and default behavior. With only one optional param there is little more to say.

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 concrete verb and resource: a one-shot rollup returning down/warning counts plus the top-3 worst-CPU nodes. The composite 'one-shot glance' framing implicitly separates it from granular siblings like node_status or topn. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'One-shot NOC glance' — an agent can infer this is a quick triage overview rather than a drill-down call. The only explicit guidance is for the target arg ('omit for the default'). No when-not or alternative-tool routing is given.

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