prtg_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly tags the operation as [READ] and lists the counter categories, which conveys a non-destructive overview intent. However, it does not describe the response format, whether data is aggregated/cached, or any side effects or access 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the READ tag and a clear summary, then immediately documents the only parameter. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool's 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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate for invocation. However, with no output schema and no sibling comparisons, it leaves the exact return shape and when-to-choose-this-tool details to inference. Adding a sentence about the return value or intended use case would improve completeness.

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. It does: 'target: PRTG target name from config; omit for the default' clearly explains the parameter's source, optionality, and default behavior. It could name possible targets, but for a single optional parameter this is sufficient.

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 clearly identifies a system-wide PRTG sensor counter summary with specific categories (up/down/warning/paused/alarms). The [READ] tag and 'system-wide' scope help distinguish it from per-sensor or per-device siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prtg_sensors, active_alerts, or prtg_alarms. The only usage guidance is the target parameter note, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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