hosts_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only aggregation but never states that, nor does it mention that it contacts all hosts (potentially slow), how the timeout governs the sweep, or whether results are cached or parallel.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; 'Dashboard' leads and the three aggregated fields follow. Slightly terse given the gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description does enumerate the key aggregates. However, with no annotations and an undocumented timeout parameter, the definition leaves an agent guessing about safety profile and call mechanics.

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 single parameter 'timeout' has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate by explaining units, default behavior, or per-host vs total semantics, and it does none of that.

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 states a specific composite resource: per-host reachability, tmux presence and session count, which distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like ping_all, tmux_present or list_sessions_all. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this replaces several individual checks, when it should be preferred over ping_all plus tmux_present, or whether it fans out to every host.

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