prtg_system_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's '[READ]' tag reinforces it consistently. It adds the useful 'system-wide' scope context and enumerates the counters, but says nothing about return format or freshness, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a bracketed tag and one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler; it is sized appropriately for a one-parameter read tool.

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 simple read-only counter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is counted and the optional target. It stops short of indicating the response shape or whether counters are point-in-time, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the single parameter: target is a 'PRTG target name from config' and can be omitted for the default. That meaningfully clarifies origin and default behavior beyond the bare anyOf[string,null] in 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'System-wide PRTG sensor counters (up/down/warning/paused/alarms)'. An agent can tell this returns aggregate counts rather than per-sensor listings like prtg_sensors. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling it differs from.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions for choosing this over prtg_sensors or prtg_alarms. The only context is the arg note about omitting target for the default.

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