QNM suite rollup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces them with 'Read-only' and 'Never enables radios beyond default suite-presence.' It adds important non-obvious context: this is not a login mesh, Views/MCP/downloads do not enter QNM-S, the node process is local qnm-node/, and it is not a second Softwares door. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The core purpose and usage guidance are front-loadedheavily, but the description becomes a dense run-on of system-specific caveats such as 'Kernel-direct fabric wrapper — not MASTER-33; not a second Softwares door' and 'Views/MCP/downloads do not enter QNM-S.' It repeats read-only and radio-enabling statements and mixes return-value enumeration with architectural disambiguation, so it is more verbose than necessary.

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?

Despite its verbosity, the description is complete for selection and invocation: it explains what fields are returned, gives the live_nodes formula, names the QNS-CD-1.0 citation, states the no-argument contract, and covers exclusions. An output schema also exists, so the agent is not missing any needed context.

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 tool has zero parameters rentals and the schema already states 'No arguments. Send {}.', so there is no parameter-level detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read QNM suite rollup totals') and immediately defines the key fields (live_nodes, software_nodes, bearers, etc.). It explicitly says this is 'not the node roster' and names mesh_nodes as the sibling to use for listing individual nodes, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit positive guidance: 'Use this when you need public Live Nodes (mesh size) or software_nodes (product Worker roster).' It also provides clear negative guidance with named alternatives: 'Do not use it for listing individual nodes, enabling extra radios, or executing a catalog engine; use mesh_nodes, mesh_enable, or fraggate_call instead.'

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