Device Health Metrics

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds significant behavioral context: explains compliance rule (non-compliant only when remediation needed, pending tracked separately), and what metrics are included (managed/unmanaged breakdown, status, check-in recency). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. The second sentence adds valuable behavioral detail about compliance, but could be slightly more concise. No wasted words.

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?

Adequately describes return metrics for a fleet health overview tool with existing output schema. However, missing parameter-level context (e.g., what limit and max_stale_devices control) which is important for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (group_id, include_unmanaged, limit, max_stale_devices). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it aggregates organization-wide device health statistics including breakdowns and compliance metrics. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar tools like policy_compliance_stats or compliance_snapshot.

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?

Implies use for monitoring dashboards and fleet-wide overview, but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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