Device Health Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds scope ('aggregate organization-wide') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits. Given annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value beyond 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?

Two sentences: first sentence details output types, second gives usage context. No redundant wording. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description lacks any parameter guidance for a tool with four parameters. For an aggregation tool, the agent needs to know how to filter or limit results. The description is incomplete for effective 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 does not explain any of the four parameters (group_id, include_unmanaged, limit, max_stale_devices). The agent has no guidance on how to set these parameters, which is a critical gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 states the tool aggregates organization-wide device health statistics and lists specific breakdown types (managed/unmanaged, status, compliance, check-in recency). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like device_detail or list_devices by focusing on aggregate fleet-wide metrics.

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 explicitly says to use this for monitoring dashboards and fleet-wide health overview, providing clear context. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives, but the given use case effectively guides the agent.

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