trmm_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Get'), lists expected output fields, and adds context about governance (Arbiter policy) and a cryptographic receipt. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or behavior under errors, which would enhance transparency.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly defines the tool's purpose and output. The second adds necessary context (scope, policy, receipt). No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description details the expected output (counts and site list) and includes scope and governance context. It is complete for a simple read-only tool, though it could mention if any filtering or ordering is supported.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description does not add parameter information because none are needed, but it compensates by describing the output fields, which are not 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 retrieves a summary of Tactical RMM agents with specific counts (total, online, offline, overdue) and a site list. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Tactical RMM agent summary' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trmm_agents' (likely listing agents) and 'trmm_health' (status).

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 mentions the required scope ('integrations:trmm:read') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trmm_agents' or 'trmm_health'. It does not specify when-not-to-use or provide context for selecting this over siblings.

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