device_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states returns ('healthy' flag and 'issues' list) and behavior (resilient to missing environment data, which becomes a note). It could add more about potential side-effects or performance, but is sufficient.

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 concise with three short paragraphs, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 health summary tool with no output schema, the description explains the return structure and parameter behavior. It could mention what 'facts' includes, but overall it is complete enough for agent usage.

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 description explains the single parameter 'target' with 'Device name from config; omit to use the default device', adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 starts with '[READ] Aggregated health: facts + interface up/down counts + environment', clearly stating the verb (READ) and resource (aggregated health) and its components. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_interfaces_counters and get_environment by being an aggregation.

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 implies usage for a summary of device health and mentions resilience to missing environment data, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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